On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:05:45 -0400 Eric Griffith <egriffith92@xxxxxxxxx> 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. Well, I don't know the full history here, but IMHO, the problem is that the way grub2 does config is not very ideal. Most applications when you want to add some new configuration allow you to just do that and leave everything else you already set the way you wanted it alone. With grub2 it expects to completely regenerate it's config file every time you want to add a new entry. From a practical standpoint this means if you have several entries that work just fine and add a new one you could end up with none of them working instead of just the most recent one failing and allowing you to go back and use one of the previous (working) ones. Perhaps other distros have figured out better ways to deal with this, I don't know. If someone wanted to go and survey this and report back that information might be of help. kevin
Attachment:
pgp02lcHwN6gL.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
