14.04.2016 09:47, Chris Murphy пишет:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Andrei Borzenkov
wrote: 14.04.2016 00:17, Chris Murphy пишет:
I suggest you keep doing what you've been doing, the path of lease resistance, until there are resources to do this correctly. And to do it correctly means getting distros together and agreeing on scope and details of a bootloader specification or standard. So far there's an insufficient concensus; and GRUB upstream is opposed to the specs as written so far.
Reference please. As far as I remember GRUB upstream maintainer did not like specific patch implementing parsing of these specs that is part of Fedora (or at least was proposed there). Nobody ever submitted support for it upstream, so how can you say upstream is opposed to it?
The spec itself was considered problematic, not just the Fedora implementation of that spec (which departs from the spec in meaningful ways). No direction on how to improve the spec to meet upstream's concerns has been given.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2013-06/msg00023.html
The entire point of a boot specification is constraint, so naturally there will be use cases that can't be supported. The spec is a subset of common functionality designed to make things easier for users who will accept standardization via completely automatic, non-customizable, installations. The experts can do things how they've been doing it if they want.
Ah, right. OK, there is long distance between using this spec as default configuration and being able to parse it. grub2 supports parsing of legacy menu.lst and syslinux.cfg and I do not see any issue in adding parser for bootloader specification. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org