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 worthwhile goal and this is part of that. The two
alternative designs (guest code in guest vm, guest code in host vm)
were both shown to be inferior designs (the first because the guest vm
might not be bootable and requires booting up the guest vm which is
highly undesirable if the user is simply attempting an offline
modification of the vm, the second because that's a huge gaping
security cluster fuck).
It's a bad design because it asserts something (grub versions are
compatible with each other) that isn't true (they're not). I don't have
any idea how to solve this given the constraints that are being imposed,
but this approach certainly isn't a solution.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org