If I opt to enable systemd-boot-update.service, does this hook still make sense?
In 99% of the cases you can probably just use the service instead of this hook. Some people have use-cases (for ex. secure boot) where they probably want to run bootloader updates in an interactive manner (you will probably notice a failed pacman hook, while a failed service can be more hidden), which is why some will still opt to use this hook instead. This task is so mundane, there aren't really any big problems that could arise other than issues with secure boot.
For me personally the hook feels more robust, but it technically does the exact same thing as the service, just with different timing.
but the advantage is that we stay closer to upstream.
I think upstream doesn't have a preference here. On Arch it's disabled by default. So I guess everyone can decide for themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if the service will be enabled by default in the future, as it only touches systemd-boot installations anyway and doesn't even modify any EFI variables. It's basically just a glorified cp
.
Edit: Btw. sorry to everyone who turned notifications on. Again. This task is so mundane, most people probably don't care :D
Pinned Comments
Scrumplex commented on 2021-12-27 16:37 (UTC) (edited on 2021-12-27 16:38 (UTC) by Scrumplex)
I have updated the hook now, to use the systemd unit instead of doing the update ourselves. If you are still running systemd 249 or older, don't use this, as it relies on systemd 250.