grub / grub2 conflicts

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:36:55PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:31:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:27:16PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > 
> > > So I propose that we drop this conflicts and fix grubby instead.
> > 
> > No. It is not sane to have multiple bootloaders installed on one 
> > machine.
> 
> There's an interesting verbal trick there.  "multiple bootloaders" are
> not installed.  Multiple versions of the grub RPM package are
> installed.  Only one bootloader would be installed on the host.

grub and grub2 are different packages with approximately no code in 
common. They're different bootloaders. We don't support having multiple 
different bootloaders installed.

> > Just install the grub package in the guest, and chroot into the guest if 
> > you need to run grub-install there.
> 
> Running tools from out of the guest is insecure.  There are several
> ways in which a guest could exploit the host if we did this.  See
> "Security" here for some issues:
> 
> http://libguestfs.org/guestfs.3.html#running_commands

We're talking about guest creation, aren't we? Why would you ever need 
to run grub-install against a guest image that already exists? And if 
you do, you're already going to have problems come F17. It's likely that 
grub will no longer exist, but F15 guests will still need it rather than 
grub2.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org