On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > yeah, I have to admit I get the feeling we're kind of swimming against > the tide, now. I'm not sure it would be so terrible to just decide to go > with the upstream design, run grub2-mkconfig any time grub2.cfg needs > updating, and tell people to do customization in the /etc/grub.d stuff > as upstream intends. > > The whole point of going with grub2 was to get closer to upstream and > reduce our maintenance burden, right? grubby feels like a substantial > chunk of maintenance burden too.
I just don't see the benefit of people's main grub menus being persistently populated with overly verbose entries, in a simple single Fedora system. And the argument to use grubby because it doesn't clobber grub.cfg in multiple-OS situations doesn't follow logically either, because the other distros can certainly clobber that same grub.cfg, again by design, with full warning of this in multiple locations not least of which is the grub.cfg itself. Which BTW, this insertion by grubby makes the header info of the grub.cfg in between misleading and false. That header says the file was generated by grub-mkconfig, which after it's been molested by grubby is not completely true. The present mkconfig behavior in f17bTC2 is really quite clean in terms of menu structure - visually it's still way too NYC black attire... but that's another matter. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
