On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 4:29 PM Pete Batard <pete@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2021.04.11 21:14, Robert Scheck wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> To be absolutely clear, I completely agree with everything here. > >> However, with GRUB being completely dysfunctional upstream and all the > >> pressure from everyone else basically doing nothing, I don't know what > >> else we're supposed to do. Outside of Fedora, I help maintain GRUB for > >> other distributions, and I wound up having no choice but to use the > >> Red Hat tree to get *any* maintained improvements. If there was any > >> light at the end of the tunnel, I would say my own suggestion is > >> completely ridiculous. > >> > >> However, the *major* reason for my suggestion to use the Red Hat tree > >> is that the Btrfs driver has the SUSE patches to be able to read and > >> boot from subvolumes, which are not upstream. > > > > I am sorry, but if some folks decide to run kind of a GRUB2 fork, then > > please do it either properly (e.g. by calling it an official fork and a > > separate project that might attract other projects as GRUB2 alternative), > > or get the changes into upstream. Staying close to upstream is a Fedora > > goal: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects > > > > As long as EfiFs upstream only supports a non-forked GRUB2, I won't change > > my package except when being forced officially by FESCo to do so (in that > > case I will consider orphaning the package). > > > > Anyway, as long as systemd-boot upstream does not seem to care much about > > whether vfat XBOOTLDR is working at all (even an EfiFs driver is loaded by > > UEFI itself; their own internal UEFI driver loader is not yet implemented), > > a discussion about EfiFs using the Red Hat GRUB2 fork is IMHO unnecessary. > > I'm just going to add that, since I am patching GRUB in EfiFs anyway > (https://github.com/pbatard/efifs/blob/master/0001-GRUB-fixes.patch), > mostly to fix incompatibilities with EDK2 or MSVC, then if someone can > point me to the exact subset of commits you'd like to see applied, I > *may* look into adding a second GRUB patch into my repo, that adds the > changes required to address your issue (provided that these can be > condensed to a reasonable sized patch and don't require extensive rework). > > Considering that one must already apply one patch to the GRUB tree for > EfiFs compilation anyway, this might hopefully provide a compromise that > is good enough to satisfy everyone... > > But of course, I need to know what is the minimal subset of changes, > that Fedora's GRUB has, and that you need to see applied to EfiFs's GRUB. > You can see the commits here: https://github.com/rhboot/grub2/commits/fedora-35/grub-core/fs The commits applied by "martinezjavier" on March 22 are the only commits we have in grub-core/fs that's not in mainline GRUB2. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
