MX Linux Forum

Looks like debian upstream have decided to drop multi-init support in the latest shipped version of grub for Trixie…

https://salsa.debian.org/grub-team/grub ... 7bf55ba59d

This is one of the features (alongside systemd-shim) that allows MX to ship with 2 inits...

ProwlerGr wrote: Wed Jun 18, 2025 3:36 am Looks like debian upstream have decided to drop multi-init support in the latest shipped version of grub for Trixie…

This is one of the features (alongside systemd-shim) that allows MX to ship with 2 inits...

As I understand it, MX devs are aware of this and have been considering the odds of offering sysVinit-only and systemd-only ISOs of the next official MX release. There has so far been no official statement on this or if such a split will be necessary, so if I were you I wouldn't bother stirring up anxiety about it until there's a official stance on init options made by the MX development team.

I'm guessing the split would most likely be considered due to systemd-shim not being able to catch-up with Debian's upstream systemd.

The grub patch removal (at a first glance - I could be wrong) should be able to be re-applied in an indepedent antiX/MX build without much effort.
I might have a look & see if can provide a build for my init-diversity project

ProwlerGr wrote: Wed Jun 18, 2025 5:23 am I'm guessing the split would most likely be considered due to systemd-shim not being able to catch-up with Debian's upstream systemd.

The grub patch removal (at a first glance - I could be wrong) should be able to be re-applied in an indepedent antiX/MX build without much effort.
I might have a look & see if can provide a build for my init-diversity project

probly easier to either divert 10_linux with an adjusted config, or potentially "better" instead of divert/replace to divert/remove the original 10_linux
and provide a multiinit e.g. 10_linux_multi. The later would make it easier to reinstall grub-packages, b/c removed config, wont be re-added after reinstall (I think).
Also this keeps, grub working with secureboot, b/c self compiling grub takes a away the signed efi-grubloader.
IIRC, the bookworm-backport version shows the same symptom.

There's a few ways to look at it I guess with each option having its positives & negatives.
- Option 1: Reapply the removed patch if it still works (It has always been a patch - so no point to try & reinvent the wheel of how it always worked). The negative in this option is needing to maintain a full fork doing a full build
- Option 2: Create/modify the grub MX-antiX package that apart from applying branding and splash screens, can also replace the 10_linux file &/or add a multi-init section . This way you don't need to rebuild the full thing & maintain a full fork.

We already have 10_linux diverted I believe. Our usual boot options are present when we use systemd-shim.

I have opened a chat with the Debian developers about this topic here:
https://salsa.debian.org/grub-team/grub ... 7bf55ba59d

I can't officially represent MX or antiX, so I'd encourage you to participate if you wish @dolphin_oracle & @anticapitalista.