Hi Steve, On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 19:20 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 01:54:50PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > >Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> As I've just blogged, I've got a second alpha CD released with EFI > >> support, this time using grub-efi by default. The first release used > >> elilo only, but I think grub is preferred. So, my question is: should > >> we follow existing x86 convention and allow users a choice of > >> bootloader (grub-efi/elilo like grub/lilo for BIOS boot), or should we > >> just offer grub-efi? Both work OK, but grub-efi is a bit more capable > >> IMHO. If we *do* want to support elilo too, we'll need small patches > >> applying to both elilo and elilo-installer (see attached for what I > >> have so far). Talking of elilo, I also found #685186 in my testing... > > > >I'd say we still allow installing lilo due to a combination of inertia > >and possibly it supporting some configurations that grub does not. > >If these reasons don't apply for EFI, simplicity rules. > > Yep, fair enough. > IMO, more choice is goodness but if I had to choose one for EFI going forward I would lean towards grub-efi as well the big reason being chain-loading which elilo never supported and that may become more important with UEFI+secure boot. my .02.
cheers, the upstream elilo guy. -- __________________________________ JASON FLEISCHLI HP - Linux Telco R&D | Support Ft. Collins CO (970)898-0874 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1345727933.16539.6.camel@ubu1004
