1 |
Hi, everyone. |
2 |
|
3 |
I've finally found some time to revive eclean-kernel, and I'm having |
4 |
some doubts about the way bootloaders are used (in ek1). I'd like to |
5 |
hear your opinion on whether the old behavior should be kept or removed |
6 |
in favor of more-like-ek2 behavior. |
7 |
|
8 |
Originally, ek1 assumed that we shouldn't normally remove kernels that |
9 |
are listed in the bootloader. It made sense back in the day when I was |
10 |
using LILO, and it just took whatever was linked to /boot/vmlinuz{,.old} |
11 |
and ek removed the rest. Today, it makes less sense with bootloaders |
12 |
like GRUB2 or systemd-boot that normally just use all installed kernels. |
13 |
|
14 |
Alternatively, ek1 had destructive mode (a misnomer probably) that just |
15 |
kept N newest kernels and removed older. This is also the behavior |
16 |
exhibited by ek2 (since I've never gotten to implement bootloaders). |
17 |
|
18 |
The truth is, the bootloader support code in ek1 is ugly and needs |
19 |
a major refactoring. However, I'm wondering whether it's worth |
20 |
the effort or if I should just remove it altogether. |
21 |
|
22 |
Hence my question: do you find 'do not remove kernels listed |
23 |
in bootloader config' feature useful? Do you think it should remain |
24 |
the default? Do you think it is worthwhile to continue supporting it? |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Best regards, |
28 |
Michał Górny |