| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 16:59 CDT, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> All, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I want to look into removing grub:0 from the tree; here are my thoughts |
| 6 |
> on why it should go. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> - the handbook doesn't document grub:0; we officially only support |
| 9 |
> grub:2. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> - Removing grub:0 from the tree doesn't stop you from using it. If people |
| 12 |
> really want it I will place it in the graveyard overlay. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> - grub:0 is dead upstream. They have not done any work on it in years. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
+1 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Yes, let's lastrite it and put it into ::graveyard as well. People that |
| 19 |
insist on using it can find it there then. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> - The only real problem with grub:2 has to do with pperception. Yes, |
| 22 |
> their documentation has a strong preference toward using their |
| 23 |
> configuration script (grub-mkconfig) to generate your grub.cfg, but |
| 24 |
> this is not required. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
On modern systems with UEFI and efi payloads we have the following |
| 27 |
alternatives as well: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
sys-boot/refind |
| 30 |
sys-boot/systemd-boot (aka gummiboot) (alternatively sys-apps/systemd) |
| 31 |
- direct efi stub loading |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I don't see any compelling argument that grub:0 would be the only |
| 34 |
alternative if one tries to avoid grub:2. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Best, |
| 37 |
Matthias |
Archives