Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
Adam Williamson wrote: We provide upstream code in a unified set of repositories, tested to interact properly. Did I say that we're not supposed to patch code shipped by upstream? No. What I said - or rather, the belief my statement was based on, because this isn't exactly what I said - is that we don't generally carry permanent long-term downstream patches just to change upstream behaviour that we disagree with. This is a bad thing to do. I don't agree with this statement, and in fact we do carry such patches in several packages (and I think that's often a good thing, upstreams sometimes have really horrible ideas about how their software should behave (by default)). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
Reindl Harald wrote: and why in the world needs th emenu to be hidden? [snip, answering separately to the middle paragraph] the only goal you achive with all this stuff is people craing woooh my system does not boot after kernel-update without let them EASY know hey you can always boot the previous one +1 Setting the GRUB timeout to something non-0 is one of the first changes I did to my systems. i would love to also get rid of this useless submenu for differenct kernel-versions and ALL the fancy stuff in GRUB which is not needed for a clean system boot I also prefer the non-nested list (because I don't use anything other than Fedora anyway). Thankfully, grubby does that and I'm not rerunning grub2- mkconfig at all. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
Here's what our policies say: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment All patches in Fedora spec files SHOULD have a comment above them about their upstream status. Any time you create a patch, it is best practice to file it in an upstream bug tracker, and include a link to that in the comment above the patch. This is based on (and links to) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects : The Fedora Project focuses, as much as possible, on not deviating from upstream in the software it includes in the repository. The following guidelines are a general set of best practices, and provide reasons why this is a good idea, tips for sending your patches upstream, and potential exceptions Fedora might make. The primary goal is to share the benefits of a common codebase for end users and developers while simultaneously reducing unnecessary maintenance efforts. i.e., we try to avoid carrying patches permanently downstream, except in cases where we obviously have to patch something which it would not be appropriate to upstream (say, adding a Fedora logo to the login screen, or something). Actually there are cases where upstream intentionally provides something configurable, and it has to pick one of the options as the default one, but that doesn't mean it _insists_ on it. The purpose of having it configurable (not hard-coded) is for distributions to adjust it as they see fit. So while this 'close to upstream' approach makes sense when it comes to patching source code, it may not make much sense when it comes to patching default options in configuration files or various templates. My comment is not related to GRUB, I haven't studied the issue closely and I don't know which of the cases is it. I just wanted to comment on the principle you cited. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 01:26 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: i would love to also get rid of this useless submenu for differenct kernel-versions and ALL the fancy stuff in GRUB which is not needed for a clean system boot I look forward to your patches. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
Am 04.01.2013 17:47, schrieb Adam Jackson: On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 01:26 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: i would love to also get rid of this useless submenu for differenct kernel-versions and ALL the fancy stuff in GRUB which is not needed for a clean system boot I look forward to your patches oh the code must exist in grubby because submenu is not generated at kernel updates with YUM, only grub2-mkconfig creates it again and destroys booting if your configuration is secured with a password because it removes --unrestricted leading to enter password for boot the machine again the other fancy crap goes away with remove rhgb and quiet rd.plymouth=0 plymouth.enable=0 removes the rest unbelieveable how many time and code was spent in the last years to make a shiny boot hide anything from the users because they could look and learn what their systems does signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Apart from all the bullshit about cars, which part of it's part of upstream grub2 are you people not understanding? This is not our code. This is how grub2-mkconfig works. We are not going to get into the game of patching bootloader behaviour downstream again. You don't want grub2 to generate nested menus by default, you can go upstream and argue with the grub developers. Please keep this crap out of Fedora lists. Not that I care about the details of grub2 - still I don't understand the above reasoning. If an user-visible aspect of the user experience is not our code and doesn't belong on these lists, what _does_ belong on Fedora-devel? After all there is a separate mailing list even for Anaconda. And if we are not supposed to patch code shipped by upstreams, what good can Fedora do at all? (I can perhaps see a case for we are not going to significantly diverge from bootloader's upstream again, as a way to avoid repeating the grub1 semi-fork. However applying it to the configuration of the bootloader is a stretch.) Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 23:29 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Apart from all the bullshit about cars, which part of it's part of upstream grub2 are you people not understanding? This is not our code. This is how grub2-mkconfig works. We are not going to get into the game of patching bootloader behaviour downstream again. You don't want grub2 to generate nested menus by default, you can go upstream and argue with the grub developers. Please keep this crap out of Fedora lists. Not that I care about the details of grub2 - still I don't understand the above reasoning. If an user-visible aspect of the user experience is not our code and doesn't belong on these lists, what _does_ belong on Fedora-devel? After all there is a separate mailing list even for Anaconda. Well, let's look at the recent threads: Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19 Hey look, that's about building the distribution. So, 'devel'oping 'fedora'. Seems relevant! perl-podlators-2.5.0 in F19 notification of a change for dependent package builds: relevant! Please review vdr-vnsiserver - VDR plugin to handle XBMC clients via VNSI request for a package review: relevant! It's not like we're short of appropriate discussions. And if we are not supposed to patch code shipped by upstreams, what good can Fedora do at all? We provide upstream code in a unified set of repositories, tested to interact properly. Did I say that we're not supposed to patch code shipped by upstream? No. What I said - or rather, the belief my statement was based on, because this isn't exactly what I said - is that we don't generally carry permanent long-term downstream patches just to change upstream behaviour that we disagree with. This is a bad thing to do. Here's what our policies say: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment All patches in Fedora spec files SHOULD have a comment above them about their upstream status. Any time you create a patch, it is best practice to file it in an upstream bug tracker, and include a link to that in the comment above the patch. This is based on (and links to) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Staying_close_to_upstream_projects : The Fedora Project focuses, as much as possible, on not deviating from upstream in the software it includes in the repository. The following guidelines are a general set of best practices, and provide reasons why this is a good idea, tips for sending your patches upstream, and potential exceptions Fedora might make. The primary goal is to share the benefits of a common codebase for end users and developers while simultaneously reducing unnecessary maintenance efforts. i.e., we try to avoid carrying patches permanently downstream, except in cases where we obviously have to patch something which it would not be appropriate to upstream (say, adding a Fedora logo to the login screen, or something). (I can perhaps see a case for we are not going to significantly diverge from bootloader's upstream again, as a way to avoid repeating the grub1 semi-fork. However applying it to the configuration of the bootloader is a stretch.) Mirek -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
GRUB menu hidden by default?
Documentation says The GRUB menu defaults to being hidden, except on dual-boot systems. but as far as I know this hasn't been true since Fedora 16 when GRUB2 started being used. Is there a plan to revert back to a hidden GRUB menu at some point or is the current behavior stable? Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On Thu 03 Jan 2013 04:55:22 PM EST, Chris Murphy wrote: Documentation says The GRUB menu defaults to being hidden, except on dual-boot systems. but as far as I know this hasn't been true since Fedora 16 when GRUB2 started being used. Is there a plan to revert back to a hidden GRUB menu at some point or is the current behavior stable? It should be hidden for final releases, but not for testing and development releases. You may have upgraded from a beta or test release, in which case your grub config file allowing it to be active carried over when you upgraded to final. ~m -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On Jan 3, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Máirín Duffy du...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu 03 Jan 2013 04:55:22 PM EST, Chris Murphy wrote: Documentation says The GRUB menu defaults to being hidden, except on dual-boot systems. but as far as I know this hasn't been true since Fedora 16 when GRUB2 started being used. Is there a plan to revert back to a hidden GRUB menu at some point or is the current behavior stable? It should be hidden for final releases, but not for testing and development releases. You may have upgraded from a beta or test release, in which case your grub config file allowing it to be active carried over when you upgraded to final. Nope. I just downloaded F17 and F16 live CD's, x86_64 and installed each to new clean virtual disks. I get GRUB menu after reboot in both cases. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Máirín Duffy du...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu 03 Jan 2013 04:55:22 PM EST, Chris Murphy wrote: Documentation says The GRUB menu defaults to being hidden, except on dual-boot systems. but as far as I know this hasn't been true since Fedora 16 when GRUB2 started being used. Is there a plan to revert back to a hidden GRUB menu at some point or is the current behavior stable? It should be hidden for final releases, but not for testing and development releases. You may have upgraded from a beta or test release, in which case your grub config file allowing it to be active carried over when you upgraded to final. No it is indeed not hidden when GRUB2 is being used see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737339 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On 2013-01-03 16:51 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed: On 2013-01-03 17:00 (GMT-0500), Mairin Duffy composed: It should be hidden for final releases, but not for testing and development releases. You may have upgraded from a beta or test release, in which case your grub config file allowing it to be active carried over when you upgraded to final. Nope. I just downloaded F17 and F16 live CD's, x86_64 and installed each to new clean virtual disks. I get GRUB menu after reboot in both cases. I have a fuzzy recollection matching the docs that Grub location had something to do with it, at least before Grub2. IOW, on a _system_ with only a single Fedora installation and nothing else, there's no need for a boot menu. With multiboot however, most people expect a choice of what to boot without having to take any special action to be able to make a selection, so get menu by default unless Grub is installed to a partition instead of MBR. Maybe a virtual disk installation is somehow categorized as multiboot by the F18 installer in configuring the Grub2 menu? -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
Am 04.01.2013 01:21, schrieb drago01: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Máirín Duffy du...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu 03 Jan 2013 04:55:22 PM EST, Chris Murphy wrote: Documentation says The GRUB menu defaults to being hidden, except on dual-boot systems. but as far as I know this hasn't been true since Fedora 16 when GRUB2 started being used. Is there a plan to revert back to a hidden GRUB menu at some point or is the current behavior stable? It should be hidden for final releases, but not for testing and development releases. You may have upgraded from a beta or test release, in which case your grub config file allowing it to be active carried over when you upgraded to final. No it is indeed not hidden when GRUB2 is being used see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737339 and why in the world needs th emenu to be hidden? i would love to also get rid of this useless submenu for differenct kernel-versions and ALL the fancy stuff in GRUB which is not needed for a clean system boot the only goal you achive with all this stuff is people craing woooh my system does not boot after kernel-update without let them EASY know hey you can always boot the previous one signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
A simple short term solution might be to purge this statement from the documentation for affected releases. If we should expect the splash only in certain cases, of course the docs should state that expected behavior. Since you folks are testing, would anyone mind filing a bug against the documentation? --Pete -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On Jan 3, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Pete Travis li...@petetravis.com wrote: Since you folks are testing, would anyone mind filing a bug against the documentation? I did, I was just trying to get a confirm/deny that this is intended and if it's stable before changing documentation. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891756 Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On Jan 3, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Felix Miata mrma...@earthlink.net wrote: Maybe a virtual disk installation is somehow categorized as multiboot by the F18 installer in configuring the Grub2 menu? My recollection on actual hardware though for F16 and F17 is that I see a GRUB menu. At the moment I don't have hardware to test, it's all multi-boot. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 01:26 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 04.01.2013 01:21, schrieb drago01: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Máirín Duffy du...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu 03 Jan 2013 04:55:22 PM EST, Chris Murphy wrote: Documentation says The GRUB menu defaults to being hidden, except on dual-boot systems. but as far as I know this hasn't been true since Fedora 16 when GRUB2 started being used. Is there a plan to revert back to a hidden GRUB menu at some point or is the current behavior stable? It should be hidden for final releases, but not for testing and development releases. You may have upgraded from a beta or test release, in which case your grub config file allowing it to be active carried over when you upgraded to final. No it is indeed not hidden when GRUB2 is being used see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737339 and why in the world needs th emenu to be hidden? Makes boot faster. It's not so much 'hidden' as '0 second timeout'. This was part of a feature for speeding up boot, several releases back. i would love to also get rid of this useless submenu for differenct kernel-versions and ALL the fancy stuff in GRUB which is not needed for a clean system boot That all comes from upstream grub2. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Felix Miata mrma...@earthlink.net wrote: On 2013-01-03 16:51 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed: On 2013-01-03 17:00 (GMT-0500), Mairin Duffy composed: It should be hidden for final releases, but not for testing and development releases. You may have upgraded from a beta or test release, in which case your grub config file allowing it to be active carried over when you upgraded to final. Nope. I just downloaded F17 and F16 live CD's, x86_64 and installed each to new clean virtual disks. I get GRUB menu after reboot in both cases. I have a fuzzy recollection matching the docs that Grub location had something to do with it, at least before Grub2. IOW, on a _system_ with only a single Fedora installation and nothing else, there's no need for a boot menu. With multiboot however, most people expect a choice of what to boot without having to take any special action to be able to make a selection, so get menu by default unless Grub is installed to a partition instead of MBR. Maybe a virtual disk installation is somehow categorized as multiboot by the F18 installer in configuring the Grub2 menu? No we never implemented that with GRUB2 just read the bug. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On 2013-01-03 17:44 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed: Felix Miata wrote: Maybe a virtual disk installation is somehow categorized as multiboot by the F18 installer in configuring the Grub2 menu? My recollection on actual hardware though for F16 and F17 is that I see a GRUB menu. At the moment I don't have hardware to test, it's all multi-boot. Maybe you, newAnaconda and I are out of sync on the definition of multiboot. Your post I replied to said you installed to virtual disks. I don't count a VM as multiboot, but just another application. How does Anaconda appear to define it? -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GRUB menu hidden by default?
On Jan 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Felix Miata mrma...@earthlink.net wrote: On 2013-01-03 17:44 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed: My recollection on actual hardware though for F16 and F17 is that I see a GRUB menu. At the moment I don't have hardware to test, it's all multi-boot. Maybe you, newAnaconda and I are out of sync on the definition of multiboot. Your post I replied to said you installed to virtual disks. I don't count a VM as multiboot, but just another application. Yes I agree, I was responding to the speculation that maybe anaconda deals with VM's as multiboot, but my recollection is I get the same result on actual hardware with only Fedora on the drive. I just can't test it again now. How does Anaconda appear to define it? I have no idea, where would I find how anaconda defines the VM? Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
