On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 17:05 -0400, Eric Griffith wrote:
Can anyone answer this relatively simple question: "Why
seen a number of discussions on various topics surrounding the boot
loader that all seem to devolve into "We would love to support that,
but grubby doesn't, so we can't."
At what point does the maintenance burden of using grubby outweigh
its own benefits?
I don't ask this rhetorically, or because I particularly want to see
grubby gone. I just don't see the benefit that we get from having
grubby when other distros seem to get by just fine without it, or if
they do use it, it doesn't seem to be getting in their way.
The major reason it exists, AIUI, is that it provides a consistent
interface across different bootloaders (we use bootloaders other than
grub on non-Intel architectures). It's also I think mostly consistent
across grub-legacy and grub2. This is a big thing for big RHEL sites
that want to have consistent bootloader management across disparate
arches and RHEL releases (inc. old ones that still use grub-legacy).
The same situation does exist for Fedora, since we *do* have PPC and
s390 and stuff as secondary arches.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net