https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189879
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189879#c17
--- Comment #17 from Martin Wilck
There is no promise how /boot will look like in the future. See also https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_SPECIFICATION/
I don't think that spec will take us very far: "Note that the $BOOT partition is not supposed to be exclusive territory of this specification. This specification only defines semantics of the /loader/ directory inside the file system (see below), but it doesn���t intend to define ownership of the whole file system exclusively. Boot loaders, firmware, and other software implementing this specification may choose to place other files and directories in the same file system." I'm still waiting for a rationale why these symlinks should _not_ exist. Is it because /boot should be r/o? I suppose not, because then you couldn't create the sysctl.conf and other symlinks, either. I really see no other good reason. On the other hand, the absence of these files is likely not only to confuse users, but break scripts and software all over the place. These files have existed under /boot for as long as most of us can remember. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.