On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 5:35 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 4/7/22 14:51, Jared Dominguez wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 3:49 PM Samuel Sieb <samuel@xxxxxxxx > > <mailto:samuel@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > On 4/7/22 08:02, Jared Dominguez wrote: > > > This is a proposal. Nothing has changed yet. The choice is now > > whether > > > to go forward with it or come together with a cohesive > > > alternative, including one of the two listed in the proposal. But we > > > need a solution that accounts for the existing maintainers not > > having > > > capacity to continue maintaining legacy code. I've seen responses > > from > > > > I haven't yet seen a clear answer about what code is "rotting" and > > which > > legacy code is too hard to maintain. Is there something actually > > broken > > right now? > > > > > > For one, syslinux hasn't seen an update in 3 years and a release in 7 > > years, and it has outstanding bugs. Legacy boot isn't where grub2 is > > getting development attention. The current maintainers in Fedora won't > > have capacity to continue maintaining legacy boot support in Fedora. As > > grub2 continues to be developed for UEFI systems (ARMv8-9 and x86-64, > > not to mention non-UEFI ppc64le and s390x), there is added risk of > > regressions on legacy x86 boot that won't be getting developer attention. > > I don't understand why we're still using syslinux instead of grub for > legacy boots, especially since I think now you can use the same grub.cfg > file for both. syslinux (really isolinux) is only used on installation media. This comment from 2012 suggests we probably should have dropped isolinux in favor of BIOS GRUB a while ago, but c'est la vie. I think it's in scope to exchange syslinux for GRUB in the F37 cycle, pending review of the effort required to do it. https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/11285.html?thread=345621#cmt345621 > There is always a risk of regressions, but if there is > no current problem, then why is there this push to obsolete a lot of > active hardware? This is not comparable to the 32-bit removal where it > was only a few really old systems. This is going to affect decent > systems that are less than 10 years old. I have a work HP laptop from > 2012 that has "experimental" EFI support that really doesn't work well > and possibly a newer one as well, but I can't check it right now. Given that Microsoft has had an exception for UEFI being required on server hardware up until barely two years ago, I suspect RHEL folks are going to have customers asking for reconsideration. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ 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
