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

Andrew Lutomirski luto at mit.edu
Fri Mar 20 19:00:46 UTC 2015

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:58 AM, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Josef Bacik <josef at toxicpanda.com> wrote:
>>> Cool so then we use grubby for these other cases and use the grub2
>>> stuff for the grub2 case which covers the majority of installs and
>>> lets us use btrfs for /boot.  Then as new features are added to grub2
>>> for btrfs we don't have to worry about some other package being
>>> updated, we just automatically get them when we update the package.
>>> I'll take a look at what needs to be done when I get back from
>>> vacation.  Thanks,
>> Using grub2-mkconfig instead of grubby on x86 was suggested and
>> rejected primarily on the basis that grub-mkconfig discards the
>> existing grub.cfg, which can contain user add/modified entries, and
>> generates a completely new one. Ergo, grubby and GRUB upstreams
>> fundamentally disagree on the fairly basic principle of whether the
>> grub.cfg should be modifiable outside of GRUB tools or regenerated
>> from scratch each time a kernel version or boot parameter change
>> happens.
> That is not the only issue.
> If grub itself gets updated and you run grub2-mkconfig the generated
> config file might cause issues with the grub that is actually
> installed on disk (we do not reinstall grub on updates).

Somehow Debian and Ubuntu appear to handle this just fine using
update-grub.  It's a much more pleasant experience than grubby IMO.


More information about the devel mailing list