On 12.06.2012 [21:23:19 -0300], Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan > <n...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On 12.06.2012 [14:11:27 -0400], Cleber Rosa wrote: > >> > Folks, > >> > > >> > I've just found what's going on. boottool code requires grubby >= > >> > 8.11, which at the time, meant an unreleased version. > >> > > >> > So, our patches for grubby have not yet been commited, and now, with > >> > grubby 8.11 and 8.12 shipping on many recent distros, the native > >> > grubby binary is recent enough for boottool, but lacks necessary > >> > features. > >> > > >> > I'm preparing a fix, and will ping the grubby maintainer again. > >> > > >> > Thanks for reporting this. > >> > CR. > >> > > >> > >> So, to be clear, this is *also* happening when native grubby >= 8.11. > >> The enviroment reported by Steve is different, but the end result is > >> the same, so I believe they are closely related. > > > > Does it make sense to just always build & install the grubby from > > autotest? I know it might mean down-revving, but if we need some > > specific set of features/code, it makes sense to be certain they are > > always there. > > We'd really really like to not need to resort to a patched grubby in > the future, that's why we tried to reuse grubby and the code that > already exists to handle bootloaders. Ideally, it'd be the same as > resorting to 'ls' or any other external utility. We'll need to nag the > upstream maintainer of grubby and hope he actually considers our > patches for inclusion.
Sure. > So, while it might be OK to always build and install grubby from > autotest, I really want to get rid of this in a couple of Fedora > release cycles (~1 year). Absolutely -- I didn't mean it as a hard & fast rule, but as a "practically speaking, we have to do this". And one can imagine other distributions with grubby 8.11 may not have the patches, etc.? It seems like if we are going to depend on a feature and that feature is not yet upstream, we must require autotest to build from source (which brings in its own pile of issues, of course) unconditionally until we are sure that there is a consistent, sane way to check for the existence of the feature we depend on. I am guessing version-string checking is not good enough. -Nish -- Nishanth Aravamudan <n...@us.ibm.com> IBM Linux Technology Center _______________________________________________ Autotest mailing list Autotest@test.kernel.org http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest
