lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")
in [Debian]
|
From: Ferenc Wagner on 27 May 2010 11:40 Samuel Thibault <sthibault(a)debian.org> writes: > Paul Vojta, le Thu 27 May 2010 00:47:14 +0000, a écrit : >> 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. To quote upstream: hpa: It's trivial to add support for it (just another MENU directive) So if you really need it, it'll be in the next version. And I assume that's why you asked, right? :) -- Cheers, Feri. -- 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/87vda9tnrx.fsf(a)tac.ki.iif.hu
From: Praveen A on 27 May 2010 12:30 2010/5/26 Joachim Wiedorn <ad_debian(a)joonet.de>: > Harald Braumann <harry(a)unheit.net> wrote on Tue, 25 May 2010: >> >> On simple standard system -- one disk, one kernel in /boot, no fancy >> stuff -- it works quite well. > > This is enough to use grub2 for new installing of Debian. > >> On other systems it often breaks miserably. Updates leave my system >> unbootable every other time. One major problem are incompatible >> versions of the boot loader installed in the MBR and grub.cfg. not strictly a grub2 issue, but os-prober creates unbootable menu's when you have dual boot systems with same /boot. Even during a new installation if the system already have another GNU/Linux it will create unbootable entries for that. See #580736 Earlier with grub I remember these are correctly configured. Plus without a single configuration file, it is much more difficult to get it to work as you like. Praveen -- à´ªàµà´°à´µàµà´£àµâ à´ à´°à´¿à´®àµà´ªàµà´°à´¤àµà´¤àµà´à´¿à´¯à´¿à´²àµâ <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- 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/AANLkTikI7z6_ywW2EyDuExW6vOfd55AlDMcu-2KdqPRz(a)mail.gmail.com
From: consul tores on 27 May 2010 18:50 2010/5/26 thib <thib(a)stammed.net>: > consul tores wrote: >> We have lost the posibility to install from disquette, we have to add >> an initrd, SElinux have been added by default because of Linus, Linus >> kernels define what to do, and ad infinitum. > > Linux is still extremely tweakable, and you are free to build the kernel > whichever way you want to. If you can't, maybe a specific distribution of > it will fit your needs -- the fact that its default configuration doesn't > [fit] doesn't necessarily mean Linus is evil, but that maybe the general > needs of most people are shifting. He doesn't have absolute power over > everything. Yes, Linux (kernel) is very tweakable, but normal users are not able to compile their own kernel; i am more remembering when i could install using 3 diskettes, and now i can not do it anymore. If, we consider that the environment has changed; we have Red Hut, Ubuntu and Suse; pushing to include every thing into the kernel, what is the best for them, then we have a huge kernel; which is not the best for older ordenators, but it is the best for newer boxes. As we can see, Linus is been pushed to built a huger kernel. If, Debian has a very tested own kernel (Hurd), it should be focused to its users, who probably are using older hardware, and maybe are not using non-free software. This is why, i think that having a Debian kernel, the users could be covered against global decisions. >> Do you know how BSDs work? Have you try Hurd? > Are you referring to the BSDs development model? Anyway, progress on > kfreebsd *is* impressive, and it indeed looks like it might become a very > good alternative for Debian in the near future, but I wouldn't say the same > for the Hurd. It's actually very interesting, but currently lacks much > needed traction. No, not the development model; i am refering to the structure, a monolitic base system, which is very small and stable. Yes, i think in the same way, we need to test Hurd in an efective way. it could help to manage the actual tendency to emulate Windows, obtaning a sipler/efective/funtional OS. I could be wrong, but it seems the most of us are prefering stability. francisco -- Consultores Agropecuarios. Administracion, Produccion, Capacitacion. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTimyGIy_1-bbtnckU5RLrtWNeiURDYUb9MqoiwGE(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Stefan Monnier on 27 May 2010 21:20 > If, we consider that the environment has changed; we have Red Hut, > Ubuntu and Suse; pushing to include every thing into the kernel, what > is the best for them, then we have a huge kernel; which is not the > best for older ordenators, but it is the best for newer boxes. As we > can see, Linus is been pushed to built a huger kernel. Actually, the Linux kernel has seen a lot of work done to make it adaptable to small systems (think home-routers, embedded systems, cell phones, ...). It's just the desktop-distros that use big kitchen-sink kernels, because that suits them better. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jwvzkzk3jv2.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.user(a)gnu.org
From: Alan Greenberger on 28 May 2010 10:10
On 2010-05-23, William Pitcock <nenolod(a)dereferenced.org> wrote: > After some discussion about lilo on #debian-devel in IRC, it has pretty > much been determined that kernel sizes have crossed the line past where > lilo can reliably determine the payload size. Could you explain what this boundary (line) is? Is the problem the absolute size or the determination of the uncompressed value? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnhvvhpb.tsb.alanjg(a)archduke.router |