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

[Chris Murphy]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:27 PM, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:51 PM, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Just use grubby for those?
>>
>> I'm not quite following the question. Grubby always gets used in any
>> case. And the same Btrfs subvolume bug happens on either UEFI or BIOS.
>
> You (and Josef) seem to be proposing to switch to grub2-mkconfig
> instead of grubby.

No, we're suggesting that this probably should already be fixed in
grubby, seeing as there are patches to fix the problem. However, it's
not fixed, so now what? What's the alternative? The grub2-mkconfig
replacement of grubby is perhaps being used to put a fine point on
those questions.

What I keep hearing are things like "Btrfs isn't ready" and "/boot
isn't supported on Btrfs yet" and that openSUSE gets to do things like
safe upgrades with snapshots rollbacks already for 6 months now
because they have people doing Btrfs work. Well, we have someone who
did some Btrfs work on grubby, and several someones who tested it, and
that one thing has no forward progress.

So the reality is, Fedora isn't ready for Btrfs. Not the other way around.


> I am just pointed one one case where this doesn't work hence the
> question how this case is supposed to be handled in your "new world
> order".

Chances are it wold work, since GRUB 2.00 shipped the configuration
file format has been stable. GRUB 2.00 core.img will boot a GRUB
2.02beta produced grub.cfg. No new world order here, you can relax. I
think it'd be difficult to make the Linux bootloading experience worse
than it is today, even by wiping the slate clean, but there are all
sorts of (really shitty) practical reasons why that's not going to
happen overnight.



-- 
Chris Murphy