* Also revert GRUB 2 core.img to vanilla 2.06, with the hope that GRUB will
*ACTUALLY* bother to release in 2023 and we will be able to update to
GRUB 2.12 (or whatever non-sequential version they decide to go with) to
say a most welcome goodbye to this whole 2.06 incompatibility crap!
* Yet another example in the long list of how not releasing your project IN A
TIMELY MANNER is creating HUGE PROBLEMS downstream... Looking at you GRUB!!!
* Closes#2233
* GRUB 2.0 maintainer think they're doing a fine job, even when there are
CRITICAL SECURITY FIXES that should warrant an immediate out of bound
release, and instead consider that waiting MONTHS or YEARS to release
anything is not a big deal at all.
* Ergo, distros, such as Ubuntu, start to pick whatever security patches
they see fit, since they can simply not RELY on the upstream project to
produce security releases in a timely manner. One such patch is:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2021-03/msg00012.html
* But since there is no new GRUB release per se, they still call their GRUB
version, onto which they applied patches that have come into existence
more than 2 years after the actual 2.04 release, "GRUB 2.04".
* Obviously, since GRUB 2.04 + literally hundreds of cherry picked patches
does deviate a lot from the last release, THINGS BREAK IN SPECTACULAR
FASHION, such as the recently released Ubuntu 21.04 failing to boot with
the error: grub_register_command_lockdown not found.
* Oh, and of course, regardless of all the above, if you ask anyone, they'll
tell you that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the GRUB release
process (even if they should long have released 2.05, 2.05-1 and 2.05-2,
were their maintainer ready to acknowledge that delaying releases DOES
CREATES MAJOR ISSUES DOWSTREAM, as many people REPEATEDLY pointed to them
on the GRUB mailing list) or with the Ubuntu GRUB versioning process (that
really shouldn't be calling their version of GRUB "grub-2.04" but instead
something like "grub-2.04_ubuntu"). Oh no siree! Instead, the problem must
all be with Rufus and its maintainer, who should either spend their lives
pre-emptively figuring which breaking patch every other distro applied out
there, or limit media creation to DD mode, like any "sensible" person
would do, since DD mode is the ultimate panacea (Narrator: "It wasn't").
* So, once again, a massive thanks to all the people who have been involved
in the current GRUB 2.0 shit show, whose DIRECT result is to make end
users' lives miserable, while GRUB maintainers are hell bent on continuing
to pretend that everything's just peachy and are busy patting themselves
on the back on account that "Fedora recently dropped more than 100 of the
custom patches they had to apply to their GRUB fork" (sic). Nothing to see
here, it's just GRUB maintainer's Jedi business as usual. Besides, who the
hell cares about Windows users trying to transition to Linux in a friendly
manner anyway. I mean, as long as something doesn't affect existing Linux
users, it isn't a REAL problem, right?...
* GRUB have cherry-picked patches from the "BootHole" vulnerability fix at
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2020-07/msg00034.html and
have applied them to their 2.04 GRUB loader.
* This results in breakage with "error: symbol 'grub_calloc' not found" when
using the release GRUB 2.04 version of core.img.
* Therefore, we too cherry-picked some patches to apply on top of GRUB 2.04
release to make our core.img compatible with Ubuntu 20.10.
* Closes#1616
* Also increase the maximum write stride for ms-sys to 64 KB (required to
write the GRUB 2.05 bootloader which is larger than 32 KB) and update hash DB.
* And reverted grub2 to the one from b3947fc026 (reverts commit 8b47e95eb5)
since FreeNAS doesn't work with the older one.
Sorry "Super Grub2 Disk" and other older GRUB2 based tools, but you'll need to
update the Grub version you use if you want to be compatible with Rufus.
* Closes#244
Pete Batard