1 |
On 05/29/2013 10:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:56:00PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
3 |
>>> There are a couple of other possible approaches... |
4 |
>>> |
5 |
>>> 1) If the 2 systems can achieve peacefull co-existance (i.e. no |
6 |
>>> identically-named files with different contents) then simply have 2 |
7 |
>>> boot entries in /etc/lilo.conf (or grub equivalant)... |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> [SNIP to shorten mail] |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Users can already do this, this isn't a solution. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> We want to make this easier towards the user, therefore doing heavy |
14 |
>> discussion to exhaust all the alternatives and maybe someone's |
15 |
>> interested in implementing one of them that appears most feasible. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Since users can already do this, why are we bothering with re-inventing |
18 |
> the wheel? How does running an eselect init command make it easier for |
19 |
> the user than telling them to edit their boot loader config file? |
20 |
|
21 |
Because to me and many other EFI users is quite annoying having to |
22 |
rebuild the kernel or do something ugly such as editing a binary file. |
23 |
|
24 |
Because it isn't just editing a file or rebuilding the kernel but also |
25 |
have a short trip in single mode to switch back and forth inittab. |
26 |
|
27 |
Because addons such as bootchart2 or e4rat would be much simpler to use |
28 |
through eselect init than doing the whole bootloader or kernel-rebuild |
29 |
dance. |
30 |
|
31 |
> Gentoo users are expected to build their kernel and write their boot |
32 |
> loader config file initially, so why are we trying to dumb this down? |
33 |
|
34 |
Because usually we aren't linux from scratch and we try to automate as |
35 |
much as we could, leaving the options there to be selected =) |
36 |
|
37 |
lu |