grubby vs. grub2-mkconfig
awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Apr 17 16:27:10 UTC 2012
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 12:03 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:49:46 +0200 (CEST)
> Adam Pribyl wrote:
> > The only reason I know is, that "people tend to modify grub.cfg manually",
> > but with grub2 this is plain wrong anyway. Why do we support this messy
> > setup then?
> Because the reverse is true - requiring a tool to modify grub.cfg
> is plain wrong, modifying it manually is the only way to go. What
> we should do is get rid of all the template files and grub2-mkconfig
> and just ship grubby. (One of the prime reasons grub replaced lilo
> was that you didn't have to remember to run some stupid tool after
> editing your grub config, yet here is grub2 with a stupid tool
> again - even stupider because it isn't actually necessary).
grubby isn't capable of generating a config file from scratch. We still
need grub2-mkconfig for anaconda.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the test