On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Like I mentioned two days ago, the only thing that matters for EC2
images is that the kernel post-install scripts continue to be capable
of updating grub configuration files, which means that wholesale
replacement of grubby with grub2-mkconfig will probably wind up
breaking things.


Which is one of a number of reasons why I then suggested that instead of replacing grubby entirely, we could simply patch grubby to call grub2-mkconfig if the bootloader is grub2. That would accomplish everything I wanted to achieve (compliance with /etc/grub.d and /etc/default/grub, which means consistent boot menus), but not break environments where another bootloader like grub-legacy, or simply legacy grub-style configuration, is needed.

So far, the only actual arguments against this (specifically, the above solution to the problem) I've heard is that it breaks being able to configure /boot/grub2/grub.cfg by hand. But that's the idea behind grub2, for better or worse. The documentation specifically tells you NOT to edit that file, but to instead edit configuration in /etc.

Most of the other arguments raised in response to this seem to have really been about grub2 itself, and if Fedora has to use it, so.. are there any other thoughts on the actual matter at hand?

Ben