lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")
in [Debian]
|
From: thib on 2 Jun 2010 08:00 Stephen Powell wrote: > Actually, that is largely a myth. Lilo's only release-critical bug turned > out not to be a bug at all. It was this "bug" that gave rise to the belief > that stock kernels were getting too big for lilo to load. But the problem > was that a new kernel was installed without lilo being run. And this is > apparently the result of changes made to the stock kernel maintainer scripts > that cause "do_bootloader = yes" in /etc/kernel-img.conf to not be honored > anymore, as it once was. Whether this is a bug or a feature in the kernel > maintainer scripts I am not sure. But I am sure that this is not a lilo > bug. Too bad it already made the news[1]. 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-news/2010/msg00006.html -t -- 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/4C064424.1060101(a)stammed.net
From: Tom H on 2 Jun 2010 09:10 On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Stan Hoeppner <stan(a)hardwarefreak.com> wrote: > Tom H put forth on 5/31/2010 1:04 AM: > >> I have gone through various big changes in OSs, WinNT to Win2k, OS9 to >> OSX (although I was a Sol-Lin admin too so it wasn't as great a shock >> as for Mac-only admins [1. see OT anecdote below]), Sol8 to Sol10 and >> they created more dislocation than a bootloader change. At the risk of >> sounding like a late-night infomercial (!), a smooth transition from >> lilo to grub2 is just a question of being positive (the un-unwanted >> and un-unneeded of above) - and putting in some work (the learning >> curve of above) of course. > > From a seasoned sysadmin perspective, a "vendor" forced change away from > something as critical as a bootloader, causes immediate push back. In LILO's > current state, and given the way I run kernels, I could likely used LILO 22.8 > for the next 10 years without a problem, without any code changes. So it > doesn't matter to me if it's currently maintained or not. > > The reason grub2 is being forced upon us all is the need of the "desktop" > users who want a 20MB kitchen sink kernel and initrd that will support any > piece of hardware on any machine they throw at it. Many sysadmins don't want > or need that, and we're being forced to change our bootloader due to the > perceived needs of others. > > LILO isn't broken and it works well enough for may folks such as myself. We > should have the option of keeping it, as an installable package, until _we_ > feel we need to change to something else. It's as much a philosophical issue > as it is a practical one. There is no legitimate reason LILO can't be left in > the distro as an optional package, just as it is now with Lenny. > > It's difficult to be "positive" when unnecessary change is being forced down > one's throat. Don't you think that lilo will be left in the repos but not available at install time? You could then install lilo post-OS-install or through pre-seeding. > Thanks for the tips below. I'll be hanging onto them until/if they're needed. >> grub2 basics--> You're welcome. -- 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/AANLkTilnPRnVOdJZHOKluJNOyJi10ZvDjsy-Igxp7PZ4(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Tom H on 2 Jun 2010 09:30 On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Stephan Seitz <stse+debian(a)fsing.rootsland.net> wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:29:15AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: >> >> Having /boot on a separate partition for robustness, security or >> advanced features (encrypted LVM and stuff) is one thing, but having it >> because the default bootloader doesn't support current (ext4) and future >> (btrfs) filesystems seems like a hack to me. > > But I dont think that everyone will switch to ext4 with the next release, > even if they install new systems. Does the squeeze installer support ext4 or > is this the new filesystem if you dont choose one? > > Besides we are not talking about having grub1 for all eternity. If grub2 > will support all features of grub1, we can replace the bootloader in squeeze > + 1. > >> software (Stephen's case), but we have to face it: >> * LILO is not developed anymore >> * Grub1 is not developed anymore > > Yes, but for now both bootloader are still working. They may not support > ext4, but they do support things grub2 doesnt. > >> Unless there are people interested in further developing those code >> bases they will be gone sooner or later. And my feeling (as a > > Yes, but in the time for squeeze + 1, grub2 may get all missing features > from grub1. Then we can at least through away grub1. I've installed Squeeze a few times (from the bcard and netinst isos); ext4 is available but there is no default. Maybe the larger isos default to ext4 like Ubuntu and Fedora. Anyway, if Debian wanted to have grub1 support ext4, it would "simply" have to apply whatever patch Fedora has... I can't think of a grub1 feature that grub2 doesn't have except the howmany variable - and it doesn't look like it will be re-introduced. On grub-devel, the idea was trashed (and, to a certain extent, misunderstood). And in the Debian bug pages, the answer was "we don't want to deviate from upstream" even though the grub1 howmany variable was a Debian enhancement. -- 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/AANLkTin4I3uGEcv3C-qlY36Qiz_Ad4RqlTkt92C3MVC7(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Stephen Powell on 2 Jun 2010 09:40 On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:06:56 -0400 (EDT), Tom H wrote: > > Don't you think that lilo will be left in the repos but not available > at install time? You could then install lilo post-OS-install or > through pre-seeding. Not without an active upstream maintainer. That's the critical need now. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- 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/268887301.224480.1275485450171.JavaMail.root(a)md01.wow.synacor.com
From: Tom H on 2 Jun 2010 10:00
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Powell <zlinuxman(a)wowway.com> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:06:56 -0400 (EDT), Tom H wrote: >> >> Don't you think that lilo will be left in the repos but not available >> at install time? You could then install lilo post-OS-install or >> through pre-seeding. > > Not without an active upstream maintainer. That's the critical need now.. I meant to say the Lenny repos (although I am curious to see whether it will really disappear from the Squeeze repos once Squeeze is released). The difference between Lenny and Squeeze is: lilo (1:22.8-8.1) unstable; urgency=low * Non-maintainer upload. * Fix pending l10n issues. Debconf translations: - Czech (Miroslav Kure). Closes: #505912 - Vietnamese (Clytie Siddall). Closes: #513343 - Spanish (Francisco Javier Cuadrado). Closes: #523466 - Italian (Luca Monducci). Closes: #544597 - Basque (Iñaki Larrañaga Murgoitio). Closes: #545514 - Finnish (Esko Arajärvi). Closes: #545511 - Dutch (Vincent Zweije). Closes: #546509 -- Christian Perrier <bubulle(a)debian.org> Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:54:16 +0200 lilo (1:22.8-8) unstable; urgency=low * Fix some more bashisms. (Closes: #535399) * debian/lilo.postinst: Add -H flag to only install to active MD arrays. (Closes: #507366) -- William Pitcock <nenolod(a)dereferenced.org> Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:54:10 -0500 -- 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/AANLkTimwV73h5SoX8iNPoOBw8Te-6X9JOQdjT0NUlJDj(a)mail.gmail.com |