On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto(a)mit.edu> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 7:05 AM, drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto(a)mit.edu> wrote:
>> Since the old proposal to have the bootloader automatically enumerate
>> boot options never went anywhere, can we do the next best thing?
>>
>> Specifically, these days grub2-mkconfig appears to produce output
>> that's functionally identical to what grubby generates. Can we switch
>> new-kernel-pkg to just regenerate the grub2 config using
>> grub2-mkconfig instead of using grubby?
>>
>> Debian has worked like this forever, and IMO it's superior in pretty
>> much all respects. There are already nice config hooks for making
>> custom changes, and they're a lot more reliable than trusting grubby
>> to do what you expect it to do.
>
> Well mkconfig can produce a configuration that does not actually work
> when grub2 itself gets updated (in which case the bootloader does not
> get rewritten).
> Until this is fixed grub2-mkconfig is dangerous and should not be used.
I have never seen this happen on any distro. In any event, even if
there's a case in which mkconfig screws up, Fedora is unlikely to be
able to install in the first place.
No that has nothing to do with the installation process.
The events are:
1) You install Fedora -- grub2-mkconfig creates a config that matches
the bootloader
2) The grub package gets updated / upgraded --- grub2-mkconfig is no
longer guaranted to generate a config file that works with the grub
that is actually installed (i.e you'd have to rerun grub2-install to
be sure).
Yes in most of the cases that works but it is fragile and therefore
dangerous to do that by default.