lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")
in [Debian]
|
From: Stephen Powell on 23 May 2010 15:30 On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:39:52 -0400 (EDT), William Pitcock 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. > > This bug *can* be fixed, but not without a significant rewrite of the > way that lilo's stage2 loader code works. Given that there is no active > upstream and that the Debian lilo package carries many patches for bug > fixes that are alleviated by standardizing on grub2, this seems like the > best option for Debian. > > This means that users should *test grub2 extensively* before Squeeze is > released so that any issues can be resolved now. > > As for removal, the following things need to be done: > > (1) The release notes need to be updated to reflect that lilo is no > longer a bootloader option; > (2) The debian-installer team needs to remove the lilo-installer udeb; > (3) The ftpmasters need to remove lilo from unstable (which will be done > using the appropriate bug filing once the above steps are made); > (4) Users need to test grub2 now. First of all, forgive me for cross-posting, which is generally a no-no. But if you can cross-post, I can cross-reply. Second, unless you reply to debian-user, to which I am subscribed, please CC me. I am not subscribed to any of the other lists. I am not a Debian package maintainer or a Debian developer. I am just an ordinary system administrator. So I'm sure that my opinion will not count 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. This breaks the design of the backup software that my employer uses. This backup software backs up the master boot record and all partitions; but since the extra sectors used by grub-legacy and grub-pc are outside the master boot record and are not part of any partition, they don't get backed up. Consequently, if we have a hard drive failure and restore from a backup, we have an unbootable machine. Lilo uses only the master boot record. A lilo-booted machine can be backed up and restored with our existing backup software just fine. Given these requirements, I wouldn't use grub-pc even if it were bug free and well documented. (But neither is the case!) As for the claims that kernels are too big now, I find that hard to believe, especially now that we have the large-memory option available. The standard stock Debian kernel image file that I use for Squeeze, vmlinuz-2.6.32-3-686, is currently 2234080 bytes. Are you trying to tell me that there's no room for a 2M kernel below the start of the EBDA? I am able to load *both* the kernel *and* the initial RAM filesystem below the EBDA (i.e. the large-memory option is not used) if I use MODULES=dep instead of MODULES=most in the initial RAM filesystem under Lenny. I'll bet I can do it with Squeeze too. I realize that lilo doesn't work for everyone, and I'm not suggesting that it be the default bootloader; but to get rid of it entirely is unacceptable. As far as I know, it's the only bootloader that meets all of my requirements, and I will not voluntarily give it up. No doubt you will tell me that I am welcome to maintain it myself. Unfortunately, I do not have the requisite skills to do so. All I can do is to appeal in the name of reason that it not be dropped. Also, please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is this "payload size" to which you refer? Is that the same thing as the size of the kernel? Or is it something else? -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- 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/698259750.358730.1274641482395.JavaMail.root(a)md01.wow.synacor.com
From: William Pitcock on 23 May 2010 16:40 Hi, ----- "Stephen Powell" <zlinuxman(a)wowway.com> wrote: > (blah blah blah blah) Nobody cares if you are opposed to it. Unless you are offering to become lilo upstream, it's going away. William -- 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/2152114.3751274645490011.JavaMail.root(a)ifrit.dereferenced.org
From: Lisi on 23 May 2010 16:40 On Sunday 23 May 2010 21:11:30 William Pitcock wrote: > Hi, > > ----- "Stephen Powell" <zlinuxman(a)wowway.com> wrote: > > (blah blah blah blah) > > Nobody cares if you are opposed to it. Unless you are offering to become > lilo upstream, it's going away. Unless someone who is a capable coder feels the same. Which is quite possible. Lisi -- 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/201005232137.28384.lisi.reisz(a)gmail.com
From: briand on 23 May 2010 16:50 On Sun, 23 May 2010 21:37:28 +0100 Lisi <lisi.reisz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday 23 May 2010 21:11:30 William Pitcock wrote: > > Hi, > > > > ----- "Stephen Powell" <zlinuxman(a)wowway.com> wrote: > > > (blah blah blah blah) > > > > Nobody cares if you are opposed to it. Unless you are offering to > > become lilo upstream, it's going away. > > Unless someone who is a capable coder feels the same. Which is quite > possible. > It's not the capable coder part that matters as much as the know-and-understand how LILO works part. Such knowledge would take quite a while to accumulate, which is why if the package maintainer can't get it done then we will probably all be stuck with grub2. Brian -- 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/20100523134651.284b4b1b(a)windy.deldotd.com
From: Stan Hoeppner on 23 May 2010 17:40
Sven Joachim put forth on 5/23/2010 1:05 AM: > On 2010-05-23 07:47 +0200, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >> No, resist forced conformity. This is Linux. We have multiple choice with >> everything else, so we should darn well have our choice of boot loader. > > You're welcome to work on lilo so that can cope with the increasing size > of kernel images and initramfs. My point was exactly that. For users who run tight, tiny, custom kernels either without initrd (such as myself) or with tiny initrd tailored to a specific hardware config, LILO should be allowed as an option for these users. Grub is bloated because it is designed to accommodate bloat. LILO is the antithesis of bloat. Many OPs don't need or want LILO to be able to accommodate bloated kernel images or initrd. The current version of LILO is fine. We just want the option to be able to use LILO because our kernel images aren't bloated, and Grub is a PITA to work with, and is unnecessary on our systems. -- Stan -- 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/4BF9A150.50600(a)hardwarefreak.com |