On Mar 17, 2015 3:30 PM, "Chris Murphy" <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: > > What's it going to take to fix this? Ubuntu supports it, openSUSE > supports it, GRUB 2 has supported it for many years now. > > This is a 2.5 year old bug, with patches to fix the problem for ~9 > months, which have been tested and work > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198 > > The short version of that bug (and the next one) is that on live > installs, Anaconda copies the kernel with rsync, excluding the install > media's initramfs, then calls grub2-mkconfig. The resulting grub.cfg > lacks an initrd line for the primary entry, because there's no > initramfs yet. This happens on all file systems. > > Next, the installer execute new-kernel-pkg, which creates the > initramfs, and executes grubby which updates the grub.cfg to include > the initrd line. Except on Btrfs. > > Every now and then the installer starts permitting /boot on Btrfs, > which then causes blockers like this: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200539 > > But due to the dependency on grubby, anaconda folks have fixed such > blockers by disallowing /boot on Btrfs. > > This email basically constitutes the harassment approach to getting a > really old bug fixed. But it's like, everything that should be done > has been done, and yet we're stuck in the mud on this while other > distros have totally bypassed this because they don't depend on > grubby, and instead use upstream tools for generating grub.cfg. > > Now what? >
Why are we even using grubby? I was under the impression that the grub2 tools did all of the same work, so why keep maintaining it? Seems silly something this easy to fix still hasn't been fixed. Thanks, Josef
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
