On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 17:05 -0400, Eric Griffith wrote: > Can anyone answer this relatively simple question: "Why grubby?" I've > seen a number of discussions on various topics surrounding the boot > loader that all seem to devolve into "We would love to support that, > but grubby doesn't, so we can't." > > At what point does the maintenance burden of using grubby outweigh > its own benefits? > > I don't ask this rhetorically, or because I particularly want to see > grubby gone. I just don't see the benefit that we get from having > grubby when other distros seem to get by just fine without it, or if > they do use it, it doesn't seem to be getting in their way. The major reason it exists, AIUI, is that it provides a consistent interface across different bootloaders (we use bootloaders other than grub on non-Intel architectures). It's also I think mostly consistent across grub-legacy and grub2. This is a big thing for big RHEL sites that want to have consistent bootloader management across disparate arches and RHEL releases (inc. old ones that still use grub-legacy). The same situation does exist for Fedora, since we *do* have PPC and s390 and stuff as secondary arches. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
