On 10/19/19 4:43 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> I don't have much to say about most of this, but noticed this bit:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 09:48:42PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
>> The same implementation could (and if I have my way, will) be used to
>> provide a features=grub mask. This would be
I don't have much to say about most of this, but noticed this bit:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 09:48:42PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> The same implementation could (and if I have my way, will) be used to
> provide a features=grub mask. This would be used for the boot pool
> (bpool) to limit it to
TL;DR: I think the installer should default to all features, so I think
the current behavior is correct. I would support the installer gaining
an option to default to a subset of features (e.g. using the future
features=portable mechanism) to make the pool more portable. If the
desktop GUI
