On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 21:49 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
- Original Message -
Or Doug could take over grub if he is willing to fix the issues he
runs into. Or he could fork grub into maggot, use that for his needs.
If he is willing to support it and you are
- Original Message -
Or Doug could take over grub if he is willing to fix the issues he
runs into. Or he could fork grub into maggot, use that for his needs.
If he is willing to support it and you are not.. that would move us
from this argument.
I could, but that would give me another
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:47, Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
Or Doug could take over grub if he is willing to fix the issues he
runs into. Or he could fork grub into maggot, use that for his needs.
If he is willing to support it and you are not.. that
- Original Message -
Oh I figured if it was going to be dropped it would no longer be
CRITPATH, but if it would remain that I would prefer not to have Mrs
Ledford hunting me down .
You're probably safer that way... ;-)
--
Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com
GPG KeyID:
Doug Ledford wrote:
- Original Message -
Or Doug could take over grub if he is willing to fix the issues he
runs into. Or he could fork grub into maggot, use that for his needs.
If he is willing to support it and you are not.. that would move us
from this argument.
I could, but
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 20:51, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 07:42:55PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
It may work. It may not. It may leave the system unbootable. You can't
guarantee it, and you've been told that this is behaviour that you can't
depend on. If
- Original Message -
You're basically arguing that we should never remove any software
from Fedora
in case it's used in a virtual machine hosted on a Fedora machine.
This is not a workable scenario.
OMG Peter, can you intentionally conflate any more molehills into mountains?
Do
On 09/23/2011 07:54 AM, Doug Ledford wrote:
- Original Message -
You're basically arguing that we should never remove any software
from Fedora
in case it's used in a virtual machine hosted on a Fedora machine.
This is not a workable scenario.
OMG Peter, can you intentionally
- Original Message -
it's
used because of a bad design,
It's not a bad design, it's the *right* design. Being able to rescue a guest
that can't boot without resorting to a rescue cd boot of the guest vm is a
worthwhile goal and this is part of that. The two alternative designs
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:28:30PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
- Original Message -
it's
used because of a bad design,
It's not a bad design, it's the *right* design. Being able to rescue
a guest that can't boot without resorting to a rescue cd boot of the
guest vm is a
- Original Message -
It's a bad design because it asserts something (grub versions are
compatible with each other) that isn't true (they're not).
I've stated this once already, but since you glossed over it. It does not
assert that grub versions are compatible, it asserts that the
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 07:42:55PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
- Original Message -
It's a bad design because it asserts something (grub versions are
compatible with each other) that isn't true (they're not).
I've stated this once already, but since you glossed over it. It does
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 15:54 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
On 09/21/2011 03:39 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 18:48 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Remember that the incompatibility isn't between libguestfs and the
guest, it's between the host grub and the guest grub. Both of
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:27:35AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Sigh. I was joking. Obviously, if maintainers went around inserting
Conflicts with other packages because they don't like how the other
package works, then there'd be an order of magnitude more unpleasantness
on fedora-devel.
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:27:35AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Sigh. I was joking. Obviously, if maintainers went around inserting
Conflicts with other packages because they don't like how the other
package works, then there'd be
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:50:16PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The grub maintainer is telling you that the way in which you're trying
to use grub is broken. You *need* to use the grub files that are in
guest, not the host. This
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:50:16PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The grub maintainer is telling you that the way in which you're trying
to use grub is broken. You *need* to
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
grub provides no mechanism for you to know that, which means you can't
reliably know that. Which means relying on them being compatible is
incorrect.
You described
On 2011/09/22 17:37 (GMT+0100) Matthew Garrett composed:
There is no rational reason to have grub and grub2 installed on the same
system at once, and having them both there increases the complexity of
the system.
For which definition of system? My systems typically contain 20 or more
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
grub provides no mechanism for you to know that, which means you
can't
reliably know that. Which means relying on them being compatible
is
incorrect.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:02:15PM -0400, David Airlie wrote:
you run rpm -q grub in the guest and on the host, if they are the same nvr,
then they are the same package, where's the rocket science here.
No, that's not good enough. You need to know the version installed on
the system, not the
On 09/22/2011 02:02 PM, David Airlie wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
grub provides no mechanism for you to know that, which means you
can't
reliably know that. Which means relying on them being
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:18 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
You described yourself how libguestfs could check it. And failing
libguestfs doing it, the user could be warned to check it.
'check' it? And what's the user expected to do if they're incorrect?
Crowbar Ubuntu's grub2 into Fedora, or
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
grub provides no mechanism for you to know that, which means you can't
reliably know that. Which
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 07:38:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I described something that is, practically speaking, impossible.
We allow you to inspect the guest to find the OS version, and even
versions of individual
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:18:48PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
On 09/22/2011 02:02 PM, David Airlie wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
grub provides no mechanism for you to know that, which means
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:02:15PM -0400, David Airlie wrote:
you run rpm -q grub in the guest and on the host, if they are the
same nvr,
then they are the same package, where's the rocket science here.
No, that's not good enough. You need to know the version installed on
the system,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:38:26AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:18 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
You described yourself how libguestfs could check it. And failing
libguestfs doing it, the user could be warned to check it.
'check' it? And what's the user expected
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:45:11AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sep 22, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 09/22/2011 02:02 PM, David Airlie wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
grub
On 09/22/2011 02:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:18:48PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
On 09/22/2011 02:02 PM, David Airlie wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
grub provides
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 07:38:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We allow you to inspect the guest to find the OS version, and even
versions of
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:51:40PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
Oh, my mistake. That being beside the point, it pretty much means
any VM created in a previous OS release won't work. In any case I
totally disagree with your idea of security, as I mentioned at the
time. It makes things worse, not
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 19:47 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I hate to say it, but honestly, this thread looks pretty clear-cut to an
outsider: pjones and mjg59 are correct, and you and rwmj are incorrect.
Their arguments that it is fundamentally unsafe to use the host's grub
or, even
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:44:00PM -0400, David Airlie wrote:
Nicely editing out of the other use-case I supplied. grub and grub2
*packages* don't install into the same few bytes.
I thought you were good at backing up arguments with technical reasons, not
strawmen.
The argument is
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 07:58:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:44:00PM -0400, David Airlie wrote:
Nicely editing out of the other use-case I supplied. grub and grub2
*packages* don't install into the same few bytes.
I thought you were good at backing up
On 09/22/2011 03:27 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:51:40PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
Oh, my mistake. That being beside the point, it pretty much means
any VM created in a previous OS release won't work. In any case I
totally disagree with your idea of security, as I
- Original Message -
Having more things installed on the host means a larger attack
surface.
Not if the host is properly locked down. And given that guests typically have
more open services, and therefore a larger remote attack surface, the more
there is in the guest, the less secure
On 09/22/2011 02:47 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
There is a further issue #2, quite orthogonal, which is that grub
(upstream) doesn't support offline installation. This is a bug in
grub 1 2 which really should be taken upstream.
You're still missing the point here. This wasn't a design
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:23:40PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 07:38:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We allow you to
On 09/22/2011 04:07 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
Fedora ships a virtualization environment, so while grub1 should go away as
soon as possible in terms of Fedora's own use, having it around for
situation 3 is not outside the scope of a reasonable request in support of
Fedora's own virtualization
Peter Jones wrote:
You're basically arguing that we should never remove any software from
Fedora in case it's used in a virtual machine hosted on a Fedora machine.
This is not a workable scenario.
Why, if the virtualization folks are willing to pick up maintainership? You
won't have to
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 08:39:24PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 18:48 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Remember that the incompatibility isn't between libguestfs and the
guest, it's between the host grub and the guest grub. Both of those
can change without libguestfs's
On 09/21/2011 03:39 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 18:48 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 06:30:58PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 20:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The grub package (as provided in Fedora) is not designed for that.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 03:54:28PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
Yes, but this will hardly help the situation, which right now is that the
distro pulls in grub 2, because that's what we've collectively chosen to do,
and libguestfs pulls in grub on the host, even though it isn't really using
it
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 09:10:06PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 03:54:28PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
Yes, but this will hardly help the situation, which right now is that the
distro pulls in grub 2, because that's what we've collectively chosen to do,
and
- Original Message -
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 03:01:06PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On 9/15/2011 12:01 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones
wrote:
The most obvious case where it can fail involves grub being
effectively
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:44:58PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
OK, technically it install the 1.5 or the 2.0 if you don't use a 1.5
(if you install both the 1.5 and 2.0, then it patches the name of the
2.0 into the 1.5 that it installs and the 1.5 reads the filesystem to
find the 2.0 so that
- Original Message -
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:44:58PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
OK, technically it install the 1.5 or the 2.0 if you don't use a
1.5
(if you install both the 1.5 and 2.0, then it patches the name of
the
2.0 into the 1.5 that it installs and the 1.5 reads the
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 02:53:11PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
This is incorrect. The whole reason the stage1.5 portion is an fs
compatible reader is so that you can update the stage2 file and it
will pick the changes up without needing to be reinstalled. This is
also born out by the fact
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
Like I said, not true. The grub package is designed to be updateable
without requiring an mbr reinstall. What's more is I had a look at the
stage1.[hS] files in the grub shipped in FC-1 and RHEL-5, and just like I
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The output of rpm -qf grub may be instructive.
I suppose you mean rpm -ql grub…
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
- Original Message -
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com
wrote:
Like I said, not true. The grub package is designed to be updateable
without requiring an mbr reinstall. What's more is I had a look at
the stage1.[hS] files in the grub
- Original Message -
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The output of rpm -qf grub may be instructive.
I suppose you mean rpm -ql grub…
That worked better. And I see your point. I was mistaken in thinking that the
grub files resided directly in /boot/grub.
--
devel mailing list
- Original Message -
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 02:53:11PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
This is incorrect. The whole reason the stage1.5 portion is an fs
compatible reader is so that you can update the stage2 file and it
will pick the changes up without needing to be reinstalled.
On 9/15/2011 10:53 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 09/15/2011 10:36 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:31:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:27:16PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So I propose that we drop this conflicts and fix grubby instead.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
See my above comment about cross-compilers. There are certainly use
cases for having the tool install and live on the host. As for
security, if you assume that the host is locked down tight with no
running services
On 9/15/2011 12:01 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
For grub1 guests, it has turned out not to matter which specific
version of grub [as long as it was grub1] was used, as apparently
grub-install updates all files needed in
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 03:01:06PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On 9/15/2011 12:01 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The most obvious case where it can fail involves grub being effectively
unmaintained, and so various vendors have
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 03:01:06PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Of course, if you are doing all this, it does beg the question of why
libguestfs couldn't simply mount both the root and boot partitions of
the guest vm, chroot into the root fs, then issue all the above grub
commands using the
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:27:16PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So I propose that we drop this conflicts and fix grubby instead.
No. It is not sane to have multiple bootloaders installed on one
machine. Requiring the ability to do so adds a significant amount of
extra complexity to the
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:31:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:27:16PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So I propose that we drop this conflicts and fix grubby instead.
No. It is not sane to have multiple bootloaders installed on one
machine.
There's an
On 09/15/2011 10:27 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This is about:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737261
F16 TC2 DVD grub/grub2 conflict
The grub package in F16 has a Conflicts: grub2 line. There are no
actual file conflicts, but this was added in order to workaround some
bugs
On 09/15/2011 10:36 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:31:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:27:16PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So I propose that we drop this conflicts and fix grubby instead.
No. It is not sane to have multiple
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:36:55PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:31:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:27:16PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So I propose that we drop this conflicts and fix grubby instead.
No. It is not sane
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:46:34AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
On 09/15/2011 10:27 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So I propose that we drop this conflicts and fix grubby instead.
We certainly can't do that without at least first fixing other problems.
Could you explain (preferably with a full
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:59:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We're talking about guest creation, aren't we?
No, we're talking about fixing and resizing existing guests, where
grub-install needs to be run to fix the bootloader.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:21:36PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:59:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We're talking about guest creation, aren't we?
No, we're talking about fixing and resizing existing guests, where
grub-install needs to be run to fix the
On 09/15/2011 11:16 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:46:34AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
On 09/15/2011 10:27 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So I propose that we drop this conflicts and fix grubby instead.
We certainly can't do that without at least first fixing other
I will simply say that this is not my view of what happened. In any
case I hope we can be more excellent about this now.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:46:34AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
On 09/15/2011 10:27 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
libguestfs, as I guess is well known, uses tools from the host in
order to manage guests.
Honestly I don't think this is that well known, and looking at it
I'm amazed this passed
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:25:41PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:21:36PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:59:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We're talking about guest creation, aren't we?
No, we're talking about fixing and
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
For grub1 guests, it has turned out not to matter which specific
version of grub [as long as it was grub1] was used, as apparently
grub-install updates all files needed in /boot/grub as appropriate.
Or at least we haven't
On 09/15/2011 12:01 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
For grub1 guests, it has turned out not to matter which specific
version of grub [as long as it was grub1] was used, as apparently
grub-install updates all files needed in
On 09/15/2011 09:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We're talking about guest creation, aren't we? Why would you ever need
to run grub-install against a guest image that already exists? And if
you do, you're already going to have problems come F17. It's likely that
grub will no longer exist, but
On 09/15/2011 12:19 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
On 09/15/2011 09:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We're talking about guest creation, aren't we? Why would you ever need
to run grub-install against a guest image that already exists? And if
you do, you're already going to have problems come F17. It's
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:19:24AM -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
On 09/15/2011 09:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We're talking about guest creation, aren't we? Why would you ever need
to run grub-install against a guest image that already exists? And if
you do, you're already going to have
76 matches
Mail list logo
