Replacing grubby with grub2-mkconfig in kernel install process
jkeating at j2solutions.net
Tue Jun 19 17:49:42 UTC 2012
On 06/19/2012 04:32 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 19.06.2012 09:53, schrieb drago01:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 18/06/12 09:30, drago01 wrote:
>>>> This would just result into stagnation while the competition invents
>>>> much better wheels and leave us behind.
>>> Abstracting for the sake of discussion from the particular case of grub2
>>> could you at least imagine new program which would be worse than the program
>>> it replaces?
>> Sure. But a new program can as well be better then the one it replaces
>> even if the other one has been in use for years. Not even trying to
>> improve the old or replace it with something better that comes up
>> means stagnation which is what I am objecting to.You have to make
>> changes to go forward.
> but it is NIT better
> it is a config full of crap and script-code
> this is pervers - short time ago there was introduced
> systemd saying "shell scripts are evil" and directly
> after that we introduce a boot-loader with a configuration
> where each init-script ever existed was nice compared against
> CIONFIGURATION != SHELL-SCRIPT
You seem to think we, the Fedora project, have any sort of sway as to
how things get written in their various upstreams. We don't, except for
very few cases. Our choices here with grub2 are
A) continue using grub1 and continue working with diminishing resources
to keep grub1 working in the new environments a boot loader will be
B) consume what upstream gives us in the form of grub2.
You seem to be advocating for option C) throw up your hands and yell
"THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE", and then.... what?
Help me fight child abuse: http://tinyurl.com/jlkcourage
More information about the devel