Hi, everyone. I've finally found some time to revive eclean-kernel, and I'm having some doubts about the way bootloaders are used (in ek1). I'd like to hear your opinion on whether the old behavior should be kept or removed in favor of more-like-ek2 behavior.
Originally, ek1 assumed that we shouldn't normally remove kernels that
are listed in the bootloader. It made sense back in the day when I was
using LILO, and it just took whatever was linked to /boot/vmlinuz{,.old}
and ek removed the rest. Today, it makes less sense with bootloaders
like GRUB2 or systemd-boot that normally just use all installed kernels.
Alternatively, ek1 had destructive mode (a misnomer probably) that just
kept N newest kernels and removed older. This is also the behavior
exhibited by ek2 (since I've never gotten to implement bootloaders).
The truth is, the bootloader support code in ek1 is ugly and needs
a major refactoring. However, I'm wondering whether it's worth
the effort or if I should just remove it altogether.
Hence my question: do you find 'do not remove kernels listed
in bootloader config' feature useful? Do you think it should remain
the default? Do you think it is worthwhile to continue supporting it?
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
