Re: [PATCH v2] i386-pc: build verifiers API as module

[Michael Chang]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 03:22:35PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 12:13:02PM +0800, Michael Chang via Grub-devel wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:15:53PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:01:01PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:44:52PM +0800, Michael Chang via Grub-devel 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 05:33:12PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:45:27PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > After some thinking it seems to me we can do this. I can take "i386-pc:
> > > > build verifiers API as module", "kern/misc: Move grub_printf_fmt_check
> > > > to gfxmenu" and similar patches into 2.06. I will revert after the
> > > > release all the patches which adds ifdefery or make code ugly and do not
> > > > benefit other platforms than i386-pc. This way you will have support for
> > > > small MBR gaps in 2.06 and I will have clean code after 2.06 release.
> > > >
> > > > Does it work for you guys?
> > >
> > > Does anybody care?
> >
> > Could you please consider not reverting them ? For me it is worse than
> > keeping them as distribution specific patch, as we will have a hard time
> > to explain what's going on when we have to reintroduce them in rebasing
> > to commits later to 2.06.
> 
> Colin, Michael, how long are you going to support small MBR gaps?

Sorry I may not be able to provide right answer. I think the problem has
two folds.

1. For the development code stream, especially upstream git. We wanted
to stop short mbr gap support for good. There are good reasons for doing
so. (clean code, free to add new features and so on).

2. For the maintenace code stream, especially downstream branch with
long term service support for years. We cherry-picked patch only for bug
and security fixes. The long life span may have building up quite some
number of setup running on short mbr gap. Ideally we didn't have to
worry about that, as long as no new feature would be allowed to add up
the core size. But things changed after this very high priority boothole
security fixes that contributed too much size growth and may have very
bad consequence. We have no choice but to manage that or the result is
out of our control.

If we are seeking for the common ground. For me it would be that the
size still matters for bug and security fixes as that would be the
material interested by LTSS backport. For new features, it is nice to
have. But that still depends on the feedback as different distrubution
may see different needs.

Finally, thanks your patience for this issue.

Regards,
Michael

> 
> Daniel
>