On Mo, 18.06.18 16:50, Ondřej Lysoněk (olysonek(a)redhat.com) wrote:
Hi,
On 18.6.2018 15:27, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Do, 14.06.18 14:20, Chris Murphy (lists(a)colorremedies.com) wrote:
>
>> The cited BLS spec is the original one, not the more thoroughly
>> discussed and thought through variant by Matthew Garrett [1] some
>> years ago.
>
> Quite frankly, as one of the authors of the original BLS spec, I can'd
> say Matthew's version was much discussed with me...
>
> I mean, I am open to extending the spec, but we should do this bit by
> bit.
>
> Zbigniew suggested to move the spec into docbook or markdown format,
> and then accept changes via usual github PRs. If there's interest
> still in extending the spec with some of Matthew's ideas we can
> certainly look into that, but in general I'd actually prefer to reduce
> the size of the spec if possible, and drop as many bits of it as we
> can, i.e. the stuff noone implements anyway.
It would be great if we could extend the spec with optional support for
multiple initrd images (the Tuned daemon depends on that). Fedora's
GRUB2 already supports multiple initrd images (it allows specifying
multiple lines with the "initrd" key), but I'd like to make sure that
whoever implements BLS in the future and decides to support multiple
initrds will not choose a different syntax for it. Would you be open to
extending the spec with that?
Sure, allowing multiple initrd keys in the snippets makes a ton of sense.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat