On 1/28/19 3:05 PM, Frank Scheiner wrote:>> What would be the gain of implementing this? Sure, it would be possible >> to implement it. But for what particular reasons and why would it be >> required for Yaboot? > > I believe the current d-i/yaboot-installer expects to install on a HFS > bootstrap (though I assume yaboot can also boot from FAT). If the > default bootstrap method is changed this would require changes to keep > it working.
Yes, but GRUB works with HFS, doesn't it? >>> But as said, as long as nobody maintains the software (i.e. yaboot and >>> HFS related stuff for the yaboot case or just the HFS related stuff for >>> the GRUB case) a development effort for that isn't justified IMHO. >> >> I didn't say anything about HFS utilities. Those certainly need to be >> kept and fixed. I was merely talking about Yaboot which some people seem >> to prefer over GRUB for reasons which I am yet failing to understand. > > Why is the situation different for the HFS utilities? They're not > maintained either and have problems on G5s (hfsprogs). Why fix them, > they're not needed for GRUB either? Because there are newer upstream versions available for hfsprogs as the code is still maintained by Apple: > https://opensource.apple.com/source/hfs/ Furthermore, if I remember correctly, we need to stay with an HFS boot partition because apparently using FAT wouldn't work with QEMU, wouldn't it? If I remember correctly, your suggestion to use FAT for the boot partition was rejected in a recent discussion for this very reason. If using a FAT partition will work with GRUB on any hardware (both emulated and non-emulated), I wouldn't see a need for an HFS boot partition either. Plus, having working and usable hfsprogs is still desirable because Macs tend to have HFS partitions, independent of the bootloader. Another difference between Yaboot and hfsprogs is that the latter is no longer part of unstable while hfsprogs is. Yaboot has to be maintained manually and uploaded manually for each architecture where it is needed. hfsprogs is maintained from a single source and automatically built by the buildds. Yaboot has to live in "unrelease", hfsprogs can live in "unstable". This means extra maintenance burden for me because no one else would either be willing or have the necessary permissions to upload to "unreleased". So, again, unless there are really compelling arguments for using Yaboot or SILO except for personal preference, I do absolutely see no reason why I should carry the additional maintenance burden for it. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
