On Thu, 2023 Sep 7 05:42-04:00, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > Things are quite complex with the memory management patch set, while > I have a backport to 2.06 in Ubuntu, I also did not release the final > patch set there yet. There was concern of additional regressions from > that. But we know for sure the current state was regressing some, but > I guess they are all regressed now if that makes sense. > > I can try to get the patches together for a stable update, but I think > we might want to wait until the final set landed in Ubuntu updates for > LTS so we don't get the regression potential on both ends (and we have > more control over the update phasing in Ubuntu than Debian).
Thanks for explaining the backstory on this issue. I was not aware that the Ubuntu-side fix had yet to be finalized. (I'm surprised that this has remained an issue so late in the EFI game. I've avoided it till now by sticking to BIOS boot mode on my systems, but that's just me---the rest of the world has moved on.) > For a wholesale upload of grub 2.12 to stable, we need to wait for > the final 2.12 release and also we don't plan to do this if we can > backport any security patches coming up to 2.06. Would bookworm-backports be a more feasible target in the short term? > I think generally this is a low priority issue for Debian if you > can't loopback large images, and Debian doesn't have initrds as huge > as Ubuntu so that never became a significant issue. The use case for this is booting into a live rescue system on an ISO file on a hard drive, along the lines of what grml-rescueboot allows. This is useful not just as a boot option when the regular OS eats itself, but also as a way to run (re)imaging and other diagnostics that are not possible when the OS partition is active. I hope to avoid having to enable "Legacy Boot Mode" just to get this working again... -- Daniel Richard G. || sk...@iskunk.org My ASCII-art .sig got a bad case of Times New Roman.
