On Dec 2, 2015 8:38 AM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 02.12.2015 um 17:23 schrieb Andrew Lutomirski:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2015 8:15 AM, "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx
>> <mailto:luto@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> > > Since the old proposal to have the bootloader automatically enumerate
>> > > boot options never went anywhere, can we do the next best thing?
>> > >
>> > > Specifically, these days grub2-mkconfig appears to produce output
>> > > that's functionally identical to what grubby generates. Can we switch
>> > > new-kernel-pkg to just regenerate the grub2 config using
>> > > grub2-mkconfig instead of using grubby?
>> >
>> > I don't think so. Despite the similarity in name, grubby does more
>> > than just deal with grub stuff. Namely, it handles bootloaders that
>> > aren't grub. We're close to having all arches on grub2, but I believe
>> > armv7hl won't ever get there and it's a primary arch.
>>
>> Could we switch for grub2 architectures and keep using grubby for other
>> architectures?
>
>
> no - there is a world without grub2
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SyslinuxOption
Then let's make the same change across all bootloaders. For grub2, use grub2-mkconfig. For syslinux, use whatever Anaconda uses to generate the config in the first place.
Frankly, I'd like to see Fedora move away from grub2 even on x86. But I'd also like to see grubby go away.
--Andy
>
>
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
