Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Bootloader use in eclean-kernel
On 5/22/20 9:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hence my question: do you find 'do not remove kernels listed > in bootloader config' feature useful? Do you think it should remain > the default? Do you think it is worthwhile to continue supporting it? In my Gentoo maintenance scripts I'm using eclean-kernel -n 2 Bootloader config is generated afterwards. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Bootloader use in eclean-kernel
Michał Górny wrote: > Hence my question: do you find 'do not remove kernels listed > in bootloader config' feature useful? Do you think it should remain > the default? Do you think it is worthwhile to continue supporting it? I continue to use LILO because simpler and more mature code is good, especially in the boot code path. I used GRUB for a short while but when I saw it fail to boot from one start to another (without any OS changes) I ended that experiment. I also wasn't impressed by the GRUB2 code quality and tendency to become a mini-OS, trendy as that is. I don't use eclean-kernel, but FWIW I think there is clear value in supporting the LILO-style approach with explicit installation/configuration of the bootloader in advance. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Bootloader use in eclean-kernel
On Sat, 2020-05-23 at 08:48 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 22 May 2020, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hence my question: do you find 'do not remove kernels listed in > > bootloader config' feature useful? Do you think it should remain the > > default? Do you think it is worthwhile to continue supporting it? > > For GRUB, wouldn't the typical workflow remove old kernels first, and > only then update grub.cfg? > I don't know, I haven't used GRUB since I've started using Gentoo. Right now ek1 behavior is to do this with GRUB2 if config says it was autogenerated, and otherwise respect the config. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Bootloader use in eclean-kernel
> On Fri, 22 May 2020, Michał Górny wrote: > Hence my question: do you find 'do not remove kernels listed in > bootloader config' feature useful? Do you think it should remain the > default? Do you think it is worthwhile to continue supporting it? For GRUB, wouldn't the typical workflow remove old kernels first, and only then update grub.cfg? Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Bootloader use in eclean-kernel
On Friday, May 22, 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> I've finally found some time to revive eclean-kernel, and I'm having
> some doubts about the way bootloaders are used (in ek1). I'd like to
> hear your opinion on whether the old behavior should be kept or removed
> in favor of more-like-ek2 behavior.
>
> Originally, ek1 assumed that we shouldn't normally remove kernels that
> are listed in the bootloader. It made sense back in the day when I was
> using LILO, and it just took whatever was linked to /boot/vmlinuz{,.old}
> and ek removed the rest. Today, it makes less sense with bootloaders
> like GRUB2 or systemd-boot that normally just use all installed kernels.
>
> Alternatively, ek1 had destructive mode (a misnomer probably) that just
> kept N newest kernels and removed older. This is also the behavior
> exhibited by ek2 (since I've never gotten to implement bootloaders).
>
> The truth is, the bootloader support code in ek1 is ugly and needs
> a major refactoring. However, I'm wondering whether it's worth
> the effort or if I should just remove it altogether.
>
> Hence my question: do you find 'do not remove kernels listed
> in bootloader config' feature useful? Do you think it should remain
> the default? Do you think it is worthwhile to continue supporting it?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
>
Hello,
My flow is like:
- install gentoo-sources
- build kernel and install to /boot
- eclean-kernel -d -n 2
- grub-config
Tomas
[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Bootloader use in eclean-kernel
Hi, everyone.
I've finally found some time to revive eclean-kernel, and I'm having
some doubts about the way bootloaders are used (in ek1). I'd like to
hear your opinion on whether the old behavior should be kept or removed
in favor of more-like-ek2 behavior.
Originally, ek1 assumed that we shouldn't normally remove kernels that
are listed in the bootloader. It made sense back in the day when I was
using LILO, and it just took whatever was linked to /boot/vmlinuz{,.old}
and ek removed the rest. Today, it makes less sense with bootloaders
like GRUB2 or systemd-boot that normally just use all installed kernels.
Alternatively, ek1 had destructive mode (a misnomer probably) that just
kept N newest kernels and removed older. This is also the behavior
exhibited by ek2 (since I've never gotten to implement bootloaders).
The truth is, the bootloader support code in ek1 is ugly and needs
a major refactoring. However, I'm wondering whether it's worth
the effort or if I should just remove it altogether.
Hence my question: do you find 'do not remove kernels listed
in bootloader config' feature useful? Do you think it should remain
the default? Do you think it is worthwhile to continue supporting it?
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
