On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 7:05 AM, drago01 <drag...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: >>> Since the old proposal to have the bootloader automatically enumerate >>> boot options never went anywhere, can we do the next best thing? >>> >>> Specifically, these days grub2-mkconfig appears to produce output >>> that's functionally identical to what grubby generates. Can we switch >>> new-kernel-pkg to just regenerate the grub2 config using >>> grub2-mkconfig instead of using grubby? >>> >>> Debian has worked like this forever, and IMO it's superior in pretty >>> much all respects. There are already nice config hooks for making >>> custom changes, and they're a lot more reliable than trusting grubby >>> to do what you expect it to do. >> >> Well mkconfig can produce a configuration that does not actually work >> when grub2 itself gets updated (in which case the bootloader does not >> get rewritten). >> Until this is fixed grub2-mkconfig is dangerous and should not be used. > > I have never seen this happen on any distro. In any event, even if > there's a case in which mkconfig screws up, Fedora is unlikely to be > able to install in the first place.
No that has nothing to do with the installation process. The events are: 1) You install Fedora -- grub2-mkconfig creates a config that matches the bootloader 2) The grub package gets updated / upgraded --- grub2-mkconfig is no longer guaranted to generate a config file that works with the grub that is actually installed (i.e you'd have to rerun grub2-install to be sure). Yes in most of the cases that works but it is fragile and therefore dangerous to do that by default. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
