On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:05:45 -0400
Eric Griffith <egriffith92(a)gmail.com> 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.
Well, I don't know the full history here, but IMHO, the problem is that
the way grub2 does config is not very ideal. Most applications when you
want to add some new configuration allow you to just do that and leave
everything else you already set the way you wanted it alone. With grub2
it expects to completely regenerate it's config file every time you
want to add a new entry.
From a practical standpoint this means if you have several entries that
work just fine and add a new one you could end up with none of them
working instead of just the most recent one failing and allowing you to
go back and use one of the previous (working) ones.
Perhaps other distros have figured out better ways to deal with this, I
don't know. If someone wanted to go and survey this and report back
that information might be of help.