Comment 44 for bug 1489855

> Making a Grub2 booter that uses Persistent partitions is not a problem [if you create 4 partitions in a very specific way and with this specific file system for the content extracted from the ISO]

I hope you can see the issue with the above because then I could add:

As demonstrated above, making a Grub2 booter that uses Persistent partitions *is* a problem if you create partitions in a different way with only 2 partitions, and without being tied to a specific file system for the ISO extracted content.

You can't just declare that a bug should be minimized, because there is a (rather complex, especially for Windows users, who can't easily copy data to ext file systems) way to work around it. On its own, the presence of a workaround does not invalidate the potential severity of a bug.

> I think Grub2 does not like a FAT32 root.

That's not it. The cause of the bug is explained above, and is entirely self-contained within the Ubuntu casper scripts. It's a big unfortunate that, in order to try to make a point at https://askubuntu.com/questions/1226318 and deflect your erroneous initial assertion, you seem not to have properly read the data that is provided to you about the exact cause and natureof this bug, which has nothing to do with GRUB.

The root of the issue, which I took great pains to detail and which the person who fixed the bug corroborated, is that in some circumstances, which we expect to the the ones that most people trying to create a persistent drive would match (because 2 partitions, one with the ISO content, other one for 'casper-rw', is the *simplest* and *most straightforward* way of creating a persistent media manually) casper scripts will unmount the boot partition and fail to remount it.

That's the only issue, which is a rather major and unfortunate problem and one, I will posit, that was left unaddressed for years on account that people like you seem to have been just happy to tell users affected by it that they should go through non-straightforward workarounds, like the one you describe, instead of trying to help raise this bug's visibility and priority so that this rather major issue got fixed.