lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")
in [Debian]
|
From: Samuel Thibault on 26 May 2010 22:00 Paul Vojta, le Thu 27 May 2010 00:47:14 +0000, a �crit : > In article <eNJN8-64S-21(a)gated-at.bofh.it>, > Ferenc Wagner <wferi(a)niif.hu> wrote: > > > >Sorry, I don't trust in the future of LILO myself. If there's anything > >which only LILO can do, I recommend you start complaining on the > >Syslinux and the Grub mailing lists. I suppose it will be heard. > > Does either grub2 or syslinux allow for single-key booting? It is available in the experimental branch of grub2. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100527013126.GR4628(a)const.famille.thibault.fr
From: Stefan Monnier on 27 May 2010 01:00 >> > for much. But I am opposed to the removal of lilo. >> > Both grub-legacy and grub-pc use sectors on the hard disk outside >> > of the master boot record (cylinder 0, head 0, sector 1). In other >> > words they use cylinder 0, head 0, sector 2 and possibly subsequent >> > sectors on cylinder 0 head 0. >> Really? > Yes. That sucks. >> and it sounds very odd: why would they do that when they can use >> sectors on specified partitions? > Because the question is "where?". Inside a file, like LILO does. > The lilo approach is "inside the filesystem", which can break. > The grub approach is "right after MBR", which needs room there. But you can install Grub in a partition (rather than the MBR), so how does it work then? >> grub (legacy) can be installed in any partition. IIUC grub2 is limited to >> being installed in the MBR. > Due to the differing sizes, yes. Why does the size make any difference? At least for the Lilo-like technique, size is not an issue. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jwvsk5e3pwx.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.user(a)gnu.org
From: Martin Buck on 27 May 2010 04:10 In gmane.linux.debian.devel.general Stephen Powell <zlinuxman(a)wowway.com> wrote: > But like lilo it stays out of unallocated (and therefore not backed up) > sectors. The boot block of extlinux is installed in the boot sector > of a partition, and the second stage loader occupies a file within the > partition. It does not use the master boot record. It relies on a > master boot record program to chain load it from the partition boot > sector. (I use the mbr package for that.) BTW, you can install grub exactly the same way. I usually do this because I absolutely don't like the idea to install something as important as a boot loader into unallocated sectors. Just do "grub-install /dev/sda1" and Grub will adapt its installation procedure accordingly. It's a pity that this isn't documented more prominently... Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/htl90g$huh$1(a)dough.gmane.org
From: Samuel Thibault on 27 May 2010 04:20 Stefan Monnier, le Thu 27 May 2010 00:58:14 -0400, a �crit : > >> > for much. But I am opposed to the removal of lilo. > >> > Both grub-legacy and grub-pc use sectors on the hard disk outside > >> > of the master boot record (cylinder 0, head 0, sector 1). In other > >> > words they use cylinder 0, head 0, sector 2 and possibly subsequent > >> > sectors on cylinder 0 head 0. > >> Really? > > Yes. > > That sucks. > > >> and it sounds very odd: why would they do that when they can use > >> sectors on specified partitions? > > Because the question is "where?". > > Inside a file, like LILO does. > > > The lilo approach is "inside the filesystem", which can break. > > The grub approach is "right after MBR", which needs room there. > > But you can install Grub in a partition (rather than the MBR), so how > does it work then? Grub1 could because it was small enough to fit in a well-known usable area in the ext2fs filesystem, but grub2 can not any more. > >> grub (legacy) can be installed in any partition. IIUC grub2 is limited to > >> being installed in the MBR. > > Due to the differing sizes, yes. > > Why does the size make any difference? Because the availabnle well-known areas have limited size. > At least for the Lilo-like technique, size is not an issue. Yes, but the file moving in the filesystem is an issue. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100527081222.GB3732(a)const.famille.thibault.fr
From: thib on 27 May 2010 10:00
Samuel Thibault wrote: > [snip] > > Grub1 could because it was small enough to fit in a well-known usable > area in the ext2fs filesystem, but grub2 can not any more. In the filesystem, you're sure? I'm curious, what part? > [snip] -t -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BFE750D.6060400(a)stammed.net |