FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-23-2011, 11:42 PM
Doug Ledford
 
Default grub / grub2 conflicts

----- Original Message -----
> It's a bad design because it asserts something (grub versions are
> compatible with each other) that isn't true (they're not).

I've stated this once already, but since you glossed over it. It does not assert that grub versions are compatible, it asserts that the stage1 boot loader and the console utility are able to work with paired stage1.5 and stage2 loaders. Code inspection of the stage1 loader showed this compatibility assumption to be correct, and experience has shown the grub utility compatibility to be correct.

This is unlikely to change. As Peter has said, grub is dead, there is no upstream, other distros including Fedora are leaving it behind, so it is more or less a static target at this point in time, and we already have the experience based evidence that your fears are not founded in reality. Could there be incompatibilities? Yes. Are there? None found yet, and based upon code inspection, analysis of the code in question, the fact that upstream has been dead for years which tends to cause maintainers in distros to do the absolute bare minimum to keep their distros booting and discourages wild code changes that might destabilize things and introduce exactly the sort of incompatibilities you are afraid of, it is a reasonable engineering decision to decide to go with the existing code as it is and fix up any future incompatibilities that might arise, if they ever even do.

As such, it's *not* a bad design, it's an expedient design. It benefits from a certain amount of serendipity. It would be much riskier if grub were in active development. But it's not, we got lucky, it works as it is, so go with it. There's absolutely no reason not to, especially if Richard is willing to do as I suggested and just throw a current grub utility into libguestfs and be done with it.

> I don't
> have
> any idea how to solve this given the constraints that are being
> imposed,
> but this approach certainly isn't a solution.

It's a perfectly workable solution. You just don't like it on the basis of your own ingrained FUD against the idea that isn't even based on realistic future development of this dead end package.

--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-24-2011, 02:51 AM
Matthew Garrett
 
Default grub / grub2 conflicts

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 07:42:55PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > It's a bad design because it asserts something (grub versions are
> > compatible with each other) that isn't true (they're not).

> I've stated this once already, but since you glossed over it. It does
> not assert that grub versions are compatible, it asserts that the
> stage1 boot loader and the console utility are able to work with
> paired stage1.5 and stage2 loaders. Code inspection of the stage1
> loader showed this compatibility assumption to be correct, and
> experience has shown the grub utility compatibility to be correct.

There is no guarantee that any given stage 1 is compatible with any
given stage 1.5, and there is no guarantee that any given grub is
compatible with any given stage 1.

> This is unlikely to change. As Peter has said, grub is dead, there is
> no upstream, other distros including Fedora are leaving it behind, so
> it is more or less a static target at this point in time, and we
> already have the experience based evidence that your fears are not
> founded in reality. Could there be incompatibilities? Yes. Are
> there? None found yet, and based upon code inspection, analysis of
> the code in question, the fact that upstream has been dead for years
> which tends to cause maintainers in distros to do the absolute bare
> minimum to keep their distros booting and discourages wild code
> changes that might destabilize things and introduce exactly the sort
> of incompatibilities you are afraid of, it is a reasonable engineering
> decision to decide to go with the existing code as it is and fix up
> any future incompatibilities that might arise, if they ever even do.

We've done rather more than the bare minimum with grub. The delta
between Fedora and the last upstream release is rather large. Some of
those changes have been pretty wild.

> As such, it's *not* a bad design, it's an expedient design. It
> benefits from a certain amount of serendipity. It would be much
> riskier if grub were in active development. But it's not, we got
> lucky, it works as it is, so go with it. There's absolutely no reason
> not to, especially if Richard is willing to do as I suggested and just
> throw a current grub utility into libguestfs and be done with it.

It may work. It may not. It may leave the system unbootable. You can't
guarantee it, and you've been told that this is behaviour that you can't
depend on. If you choose to do so then fine, but any bugs filed against
grub are just going to be closed. You're trying to do something
unsupported. Depending on unsupported and undefined behaviour is bad
design.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-24-2011, 06:48 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default grub / grub2 conflicts

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 20:51, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 07:42:55PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:

> It may work. It may not. It may leave the system unbootable. You can't
> guarantee it, and you've been told that this is behaviour that you can't
> depend on. If you choose to do so then fine, but any bugs filed against
> grub are just going to be closed. You're trying to do something
> unsupported. Depending on unsupported and undefined behaviour is bad
> design.

Or Doug could take over grub if he is willing to fix the issues he
runs into. Or he could fork grub into maggot, use that for his needs.
If he is willing to support it and you are not.. that would move us
from this argument.



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-26-2011, 03:47 PM
Doug Ledford
 
Default grub / grub2 conflicts

----- Original Message -----
> Or Doug could take over grub if he is willing to fix the issues he
> runs into. Or he could fork grub into maggot, use that for his needs.
> If he is willing to support it and you are not.. that would move us
> from this argument.

I could, but that would give me another CRITPATH package, and I'd sooner slit my wrists.

--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-26-2011, 07:24 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default grub / grub2 conflicts

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:47, Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Or Doug could take over grub if he is willing to fix the issues he
>> runs into. Or he could fork grub into maggot, use that for his needs.
>> If he is willing to support it and you are not.. that would move us
>> from this argument.
>
> I could, but that would give me another CRITPATH package, and I'd sooner slit my wrists.

Oh I figured if it was going to be dropped it would no longer be
CRITPATH, but if it would remain that I would prefer not to have Mrs
Ledford hunting me down .

> --
> Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
> * * * * * * *GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
> * * * * * * *http://people.redhat.com/dledford
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-26-2011, 07:29 PM
Doug Ledford
 
Default grub / grub2 conflicts

----- Original Message -----
> Oh I figured if it was going to be dropped it would no longer be
> CRITPATH, but if it would remain that I would prefer not to have Mrs
> Ledford hunting me down .

You're probably safer that way... ;-)

--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-26-2011, 07:49 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default grub / grub2 conflicts

Doug Ledford wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>> Or Doug could take over grub if he is willing to fix the issues he
>> runs into. Or he could fork grub into maggot, use that for his needs.
>> If he is willing to support it and you are not.. that would move us
>> from this argument.
>
> I could, but that would give me another CRITPATH package, and I'd sooner
> slit my wrists.

A forked GRUB for virtualization purposes only would definitely not be
critpath. And I'd argue that even a non-forked GRUB 1 SHOULD no longer be
critpath now that we default to GRUB 2, but you'd have to bring that to
FESCo.

(FWIW, IMHO, the whole critpath nonsense should be abolished, it only causes
problems and solves none.)

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 10-05-2011, 05:21 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default grub / grub2 conflicts

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 21:49 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Or Doug could take over grub if he is willing to fix the issues he
> >> runs into. Or he could fork grub into maggot, use that for his needs.
> >> If he is willing to support it and you are not.. that would move us
> >> from this argument.
> >
> > I could, but that would give me another CRITPATH package, and I'd sooner
> > slit my wrists.
>
> A forked GRUB for virtualization purposes only would definitely not be
> critpath. And I'd argue that even a non-forked GRUB 1 SHOULD no longer be
> critpath now that we default to GRUB 2, but you'd have to bring that to
> FESCo.

grub-legacy is still default for EFI installs (which, in retrospect, is
causing quite a bit of pain, but hey, hindsight is 20/20).

Anyway, as of about ten hours ago, grub-efi is split off from grub, and
pjones is probably going to have grub2 obsolete grub. it would, of
course, be possible for the virt team to introduce the bits of grub they
actually need for libguestfs as a sub-package of libguestfs or whatever,
which would not be critpath.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:45 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org