On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 07:18:53AM -0600, Jason Fleischli wrote: >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.
Hi Jason, Thanks for the feedback, appreciated. :-) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "Managing a volunteer open source project is a lot like herding kittens, except the kittens randomly appear and disappear because they have day jobs." -- Matt Mackall -- 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/20120823145306.ga18...@einval.com
