On 7/2/20 2:56 PM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Thursday, July 2, 2020 5:08:14 AM MST Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> On 7/2/20 12:55 AM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>> We don't need more systemd-bloat just to boot our systems. However your
>> bootloader works, it doesn't really matter if it's not up to snuff with
>> GRUB2. When it supports LUKS, LVM, LUKS+LVM, a recovery console and
>> several filesystems, then it'll be more of a viable option, and I still
>> wouldn't recommend having yet another systemd component as a core part of
>> our systems. At what point is systemd large enough that you'll stop
>> adding more cruft?
> Can you please stop calling features of systemd you don't like
> "systemd-bloat" at every given opportunity? It is not being respectful
> to those who work on the project and doesn't help your argument.
It works well with this one. It's part of systemd, for some reason. It's
bloat. It's one letter off from the actual name of the software.
It doesn't need to be part of systemd to integrate with it. We don't need to
make our system more exclusive to make use of some systemd features, we can
just use the more powerful bootloader, GRUB2, and implement what it needs to
make use of these systemd "features".
If your issue is with the architecture of systemd, I recommend taking an
objective argument to the systemd development list.
If your issue is with Fedora making use of features already implemented
in systemd, I recommend making an objective argument detailing why those
features shouldn't be used. If there are better alternatives that can
enable Gnome is easily integrate with the bootloader (to enable say, a
"Reboot to Windows" or "Reboot to UEFI" option), I would love to hear
I'm also interested in how further modifying GRUB2 to to enable features
(that were previously bloat?) that systemd-boot supports today is better
for the future of Fedora's UEFI support. Especially in regards to
testing and maintenance burden.