From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2537F605FB for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:03:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 15400196B4 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:03:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 9712E196A8 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:03:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 65D09461CD for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:03:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <897a7e1f-929f-24cc-41af-dcbf1158102c@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:03:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:97.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/97.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stoiko Ivanov References: <20220201220331.3491615-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220201220331.3491615-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.061 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC pve-kernel-meta 0/5] unify boot-mode config X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 09:03:37 -0000 On 01.02.22 23:03, Stoiko Ivanov wrote: > patch 3 drops systemd-boot and uses grub for both boot-modes, hopefully > unifying the boot-experience and causing less confusion (currently I suggest > to look at the screen while booting to find out which boot-loader is used) > > (Sadly systemd-boot (which I would prefer, justifiably) > won't get support for legacy boot) > The thing is, non-uefi systems will become more rare anyhow, so why bother with that? The simplicity of systemd-boot is worth the few (?) confusion - I mean what exactly is there confusing anyway, if most relevant actions can be handled through our tool anyway? I'm not definitive yet, but currently rather tending to NACK that.