Chris Murphy wrote:
> My recollection is grubby was going to get a rethink, but I don't know
> the scope. There are test cases built-into grubby that are considered
> valuable, I'm not sure about the rest. Gene found the code difficult.
> I think the main issue is, whether grubby or something else, it needs
> to be easier to follow the trail of breadcrumbs, self describing. If
> it's too easy, of course, it just means telling different people "no"
> about their use case. If you're going to support all use cases that's
> hard to invent and maintain. See GRUB.
IMHO, you should just drop grubby entirely and configure GRUB the way
upstream intended. As you wrote in the other thread:
> I don't have a complete or recent evaluation but as of a couple years
> ago, before Gene Czarcinski passed away, we found no other
> distribution using grubby. Distros we ran into use grub-mkconfig as
> recommended by upstream to obliterate the existing grub.cfg and create
> an entirely new one.
As a result, all the configuration GUIs for GRUB, such as kcm-grub2, just
run grub(2)-mkconfig and will those overwrite any changes you or grubby made
to grub.cfg directly. Alternative installers such as Calamares also do not
use grubby, but only grub(2)-mkconfig. (Thankfully, grubby has no problems
editing the resulting configuration later, when it is invoked by new-kernel-
pkg. But all other distros just rerun grub(2)-mkconfig in that situation.)
Fedora doesn't even remove the comment at the beginning of grub.cfg saying:
#
# DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE
#
# It is automatically generated by grub2-mkconfig using templates
# from /etc/grub.d and settings from /etc/default/grub
#
even though nothing in Fedora actually does that.
Dropping the Fedora-only grubby hack would make life easier for everybody.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
