On Mi, 27.04.22 11:40, Neal Gompa (ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > But I also strongly believe that it was a mistake to merge gummiboot > into the systemd source tree because it creates all kinds of problems > for distro maintenance, as I've already said earlier. That's very vague. I still don#t get what those problems are specifically supposed to be. Why can't you just have two srpm for the same uptsream tarball? You keep suggesting things were all so obviously untenable, but I never see an explanation why? > Ita also discourages making the sd-boot code tighter and simpler > since your primary focus is reuse across the tree rather than > strictly separating the functional domains. Dunno, as one of the developers of sd-boot I think this is a pretty comprehensively bogus statement. Sharing code means less code, duplicating code in multiple projects means more code. That should be obvious. Moreover, sd-boot is kinda simplistic. I did some sloccount analysis for you: <snip> $ sloccount src/fundamental/ src/boot/efi/ SLOC Directory SLOC-by-Language (Sorted) 6117 efi ansic=6117 797 fundamental ansic=797 </snip> i.e. that's the code linked into the uefi stuff. In fact, given it also includes sd-stub it's a lot more than actually sd-boot. And now compare with the supposedly simple "shim": <snip> SLOC Directory SLOC-by-Language (Sorted) 127120 Cryptlib ansic=126650,sh=470 15633 top_dir ansic=15019,sh=564,asm=50 3756 include ansic=3756 2024 lib ansic=2024 </snip> Even if we ignore that it imports "Cryptlib", that's still like 3x as much code... btw, grub is 283895 lines of code according to sloccount, just for comparison... So thank you very much, but I think we are good regarding simplicity... I'd rather share more code with userspace, and thus have less stuff to think about, get better testing and so on... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin