/boot on Btrfs still not supported, main problem is anaconda and grubby

[Josef Bacik]

On Mar 20, 2015 8:15 AM, "Peter Robinson" <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Josef Bacik <josef at toxicpanda.com>
wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 2015 3:30 PM, "Chris Murphy" <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> What's it going to take to fix this? Ubuntu supports it, openSUSE
> >> supports it, GRUB 2 has supported it for many years now.
> >>
> >> This is a 2.5 year old bug, with patches to fix the problem for ~9
> >> months, which have been tested and work
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198
> >>
> >> The short version of that bug (and the next one) is that on live
> >> installs, Anaconda copies the kernel with rsync, excluding the install
> >> media's initramfs, then calls grub2-mkconfig. The resulting grub.cfg
> >> lacks an initrd line for the primary entry, because there's no
> >> initramfs yet. This happens on all file systems.
> >>
> >> Next, the installer execute new-kernel-pkg, which creates the
> >> initramfs, and executes grubby which updates the grub.cfg to include
> >> the initrd line. Except on Btrfs.
> >>
> >> Every now and then the installer starts permitting /boot on Btrfs,
> >> which then causes blockers like this:
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200539
> >>
> >> But due to the dependency on grubby, anaconda folks have fixed such
> >> blockers by disallowing /boot on Btrfs.
> >>
> >> This email basically constitutes the harassment approach to getting a
> >> really old bug fixed. But it's like, everything that should be done
> >> has been done, and yet we're stuck in the mud on this while other
> >> distros have totally bypassed this because they don't depend on
> >> grubby, and instead use upstream tools for generating grub.cfg.
> >>
> >> Now what?
> >>
> >
> > Why are we even using grubby? I was under the impression that the grub2
> > tools did all of the same work, so why keep maintaining it? Seems silly
> > something this easy to fix still hasn't been fixed. Thanks,
>
> Because there's still usecases and architectures that don't use grub2?

What usescases?  And what architectures don't have boot tools that handle
their own configuration? Specifics would be helpful so I have a scope of
what I need to fix.  AFAIK yaboot can handle its own config stuff, not sure
what ARM uses. If they really need this help then by all means let's
continue using grubby for those arch's and fix the scripts where we use
grub2 to simply use grub2's tooling.  Thanks,

Josef
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150320/f01763a9/attachment.html>