Am 06.12.2015 um 21:06 schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 8:05 AM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hypothetically on BIOS systems, a GRUB core.img [1] could become stale over time, and an upgraded grub-mkconfig could introduce an incompatible format change, but that's really unlikely and wouldn't be intentional. This isn't possible on UEFI. Any update of grub2-efi means the core.img is replaced with a generically built one (that's also signed by a Fedora key for the purposes of supporting UEFI Secure Boot).
the world don't turn around UEFI
Until this is fixed grub2-mkconfig is dangerous and should not be used.That's such an overstatement as to be wrong. Pretty much all other distributions have been doing this for a long time to no ill effect.
he told you he was personally affected
[1] The code embedded into the MBR gap, or BIOSBoot partition; a.k.a. GRUB legacy terminology was stage 2 bootloader. It's created and embedded by the grub2-install command; which is unnecessary (and arguably deprecated) on UEFI systems.
and you are going to change existing systems running for many years and surivived all dist-upgrades to UEFI *without* reinstall or lose /boot redundancy by RAID1? grub2-install needs to be manually done on all 4 drives
frankly my current workstations where installed with F14 and RAID1 for /boot as well as RAID10 for anything else, they support UEFI but i gave up with Anaconda, now they happily run Fedora 23 with dist-upgrades and will as long some jerk decides to kill BIOS support or i die
the same applies to more than 30 production servers installed with Fedora 9 years ago and currentyl on F22 on top of VMware - fine, Vmware now supports UEFI too - but tell me *one valid* reason to change them!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
