Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I don't really see this as a bug, certainly not as grave. The problem
seems to be that lilo simply can't handle large images and the default
ramdisk just has now hit that limit on
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:31:49AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
where a grave bug (bug #479607) is
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
*SKIP*
OTOH, aren't most of these choosing lilo over grub only doing so by
habit ?
OTOH, aren't most of theses choosing emacs over vim only doing so by
habit?
--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
--
To
Le mercredi 18 juin 2008 à 09:52 +0300, Eric Pozharski a écrit :
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
OTOH, aren't most of these choosing lilo over grub only doing so by
habit ?
OTOH, aren't most of theses choosing emacs over vim only doing so by
habit?
The day
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 01:28:36PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 18 juin 2008 à 09:52 +0300, Eric Pozharski a écrit :
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
OTOH, aren't most of these choosing lilo over grub only doing so by
habit ?
OTOH, aren't
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
We still very regularly get installation reports where people use
lilo rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant
user base. I would say that the activity on the bug report shows
the same.
OTOH, aren't most
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:31:49AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
where a grave bug (bug #479607) is unlikely fixable without severe
refactoring of
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 01:49:40PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 01:28:36PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 18 juin 2008 à 09:52 +0300, Eric Pozharski a écrit :
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
OTOH, aren't most of these choosing
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 07:20:36PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
grub doesn't work with root-on-LVM, or other similar cryptic
installations. There, your only option is lilo.
Actually, that's not true. I use root-on-LVM with a /boot partition and
grub 2 (and previously, grub 0.9x). It is my
* Mike Bird
| FWIW, adding -9 to the gzip in mkinitramfs gives a
| 0.5% saving, which may help with some marginal cases.
Re-adding -9 to the update-initramfs call makes update-initramfs take
about three times as long to run on this system, so at least I would
rather not have that switched on by
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55:49PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
Having one well working tool is better than having multiple mediocre,
buggy tools to choose from.
The problem is that we do not have one well working tool. Grub certainly
does not qualify as such and there is no hope it ever will. So
On Jun 17, Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frans Pop wrote:
AFAIK grub (at least the default legacy version) also still has
problems with / on XFS. That's the one other case where D-I
automatically falls back to lilo.
I think you mean /boot on XFS. Having / as XFS seems to work fine for
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:12:53AM -0400, David Duggins wrote:
I would also have to say that the Linux Community has always been about
freedom and choice.
Not everyone agrees[1] about the choice part.
Having one well working tool is better than having multiple mediocre,
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jun 17, Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frans Pop wrote:
AFAIK grub (at least the default legacy version) also still has
problems with / on XFS. That's the one other case where D-I
automatically falls back to lilo.
I think you mean
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
Am Di den 17. Jun 2008 um 12:14 schrieb Peter Palfrader:
AFAIK grub (at least the default legacy version) also still has
problems with / on XFS. That's the one other case where D-I
automatically falls back to lilo.
I think you
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 23:53 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
William Pitcock wrote:
* Cope with the growing initramfs issue as best we can, e.g. by
displaying a warning to the user that the kernel may not be bootable by
lilo due to the 8MiB boundry in liloconfig.
Having only a warning is not
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
We still very regularly get installation reports where people use lilo
rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant user base. I
would say that the
Le Monday 16 June 2008 07:31:49 William Pitcock, vous avez écrit :
With grub being stable and grub2 approaching stability itself, do we
really need lilo anymore? It's not even installed by default anymore,
and the only systems I have that are still on lilo are installations of
Debian I have
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 09:08 +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Monday 16 June 2008 07:31:49 William Pitcock, vous avez écrit :
With grub being stable and grub2 approaching stability itself, do we
really need lilo anymore? It's not even installed by default anymore,
and the only systems I
On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't strike me as a valid configuration. Infact, it shouldn't
work with lilo because lilo wants /boot to be on a real device. The fact
that it does should be considered a bug, not a feature.
lilo-22.8$ head
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 07:20 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't strike me as a valid configuration. Infact, it shouldn't
work with lilo because lilo wants /boot to be on a real device. The fact
that it does should be
On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That patch only makes lilo map LVMs to an appropriate physical device.
It does not guarantee that you will be able to boot off of an LV on a
physical volume. As such, the behaviour is still undefined.
Consider a situation where /boot
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:27:11AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 07:20 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't strike me as a valid configuration. Infact, it shouldn't
work with lilo because lilo wants
Am Montag, 16. Juni 2008 schrieb William Pitcock:
Hi,
That patch only makes lilo map LVMs to an appropriate physical device.
It does not guarantee that you will be able to boot off of an LV on a
physical volume. As such, the behaviour is still undefined.
Consider a situation where /boot
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:27:11AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 07:20 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't strike me as a valid configuration. Infact, it shouldn't
William Pitcock wrote:
It seems like moving to grub for everything may be a good choice on the
archs where lilo is used.
Lilo has one killer feature that is totally missing from GRUB - the -R
option. It allows me to upgrade a kernel on remote servers, knowing that
if the upgrade fails, I
William Pitcock wrote:
I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
That's just great. That means that whoever did this just broke an option
that's been available in Debian Installer since forever: to
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
where a grave bug (bug #479607) is unlikely fixable without severe
refactoring of the codebase.
I don't
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:54:52AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
William Pitcock wrote:
It seems like moving to grub for everything may be a good choice on the
archs where lilo is used.
Lilo has one killer feature that is totally missing from GRUB - the -R
option. It allows me to
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:04:35AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:54:52AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Lilo has one killer feature that is totally missing from GRUB - the -R
option. It allows me to upgrade a kernel on remote servers, knowing that
if the
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:53:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:27:11AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 07:20 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
We still very regularly get installation reports where people use lilo
rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant user base. I
would say that the activity on the bug report shows the same.
OTOH, aren't most of these
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:19:03 +0200, Mike Hommey writes:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
We still very regularly get installation reports where people use lilo
rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant user base. I
would say that the activity on
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With grub being stable and grub2 approaching stability itself, do we
really need lilo anymore? It's not even installed by default anymore,
and the only systems I have that are still on lilo are installations of
Debian I have had since Woody.
Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/16/08 04:19, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
We still very regularly get installation reports where people use lilo
rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant user base. I
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 19:27 +1000, Alexander Zangerl wrote:
please don't remove lilo.
It certaintly won't be happening in lenny. This may be revisited in
lenny+1 though.
William
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
Can either version of grub handle all the cases that lilo can? for
example can either of them handle the situation where root is on lvm and
there is
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 09:37:34AM +0200, Joerg Platte wrote:
Am Montag, 16. Juni 2008 schrieb William Pitcock:
Hi,
That patch only makes lilo map LVMs to an appropriate physical device.
It does not guarantee that you will be able to boot off of an LV on a
physical volume. As such, the
(Dropping d-release for this part of the discussion.)
On Monday 16 June 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
We still very regularly get installation reports where people use
lilo rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I don't really see this as a bug, certainly not as grave. The problem
seems to be that lilo simply can't handle large images and the default
ramdisk just has now hit that limit on amd64.
So it's broken on amd64 for the
Le Monday 16 June 2008 12:03:09 Michael Banck, vous avez écrit :
On some of my boxes all filesystems are on LVMs and the Debian installer
used lilo to boot the systems. It would be nice if these systems can
still be used with future Debian versions. Please remove lilo only if
there's a
(Dropping d-release again.)
On Monday 16 June 2008, peter green wrote:
I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a
shape
Can either version of grub handle all the cases that lilo can?
D-I currently
That doesn't strike me as a valid configuration. Infact,
it shouldn't work with lilo because lilo wants /boot to be
on a real device. The fact that it does should be
considered a bug, not a feature.
Valid or not, the installer actually gives you lilo if you
configure the partitions this way
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:53:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:27:11AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 07:20 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On
Michael Banck wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I don't really see this as a bug, certainly not as grave. The problem
seems to be that lilo simply can't handle large images and the default
ramdisk just has now hit that limit on amd64.
So it's
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:31:49AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
If we do not need lilo, then I will file a RM bug in the next couple of
weeks.
I had at least a couple of boxes in the past where grub were problematic
and I used the old good linux loader. I generally agree that grub is
more
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:54:52AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Lilo has one killer feature that is totally missing from GRUB - the -R
option. It allows me to upgrade a kernel on remote servers, knowing that
if the upgrade fails, I will get the original kernel after a few minutes
without
Francesco P. Lovergine writes:
I had at least a couple of boxes in the past where grub were problematic
and I used the old good linux loader.
When I installed Lenny on this AMD64 box (ASUS A8V-XE) a few weeks ago Grub
was unable to boot it. I had to go back and reinstall, selecting Lilo.
--
I demand that Frans Pop may or may not have written...
William Pitcock wrote:
[snip]
With grub being stable and grub2 approaching stability itself, do we
really need lilo anymore? It's not even installed by default anymore, and
the only systems I have that are still on lilo are installations
William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
where a grave bug (bug #479607) is unlikely fixable without severe
refactoring of the codebase.
Well, grub is also not free
I would also have to say that the Linux Community has always been about
freedom and choice. Although I use GRUB my self, why should we remove a
useful package that is being used? Wouldn't that take away from the
freedom just a bit? Just because you might not like it, or like another
program
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 00:31 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
[a lot of stuff]
As many people have brought up usecases not covered by alternatives, the
plan seems to be:
* Cope with the growing initramfs issue as best we can, e.g. by
displaying a warning to the user that the kernel may not be
FWIW, adding -9 to the gzip in mkinitramfs gives a
0.5% saving, which may help with some marginal cases.
OTOH using bzip2 instead of gzip saves 10.5% but I have
no idea how much work it would take to support bzip'd
initrd's.
--Mike Bird
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
William Pitcock wrote:
* Cope with the growing initramfs issue as best we can, e.g. by
displaying a warning to the user that the kernel may not be bootable by
lilo due to the 8MiB boundry in liloconfig.
Having only a warning is not sufficient for the use of lilo in new
installations! We
* William Pitcock:
I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
where a grave bug (bug #479607) is unlikely fixable without severe
refactoring of the codebase.
BTW, the bug report lacks this
Hi,
I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
where a grave bug (bug #479607) is unlikely fixable without severe
refactoring of the codebase.
With grub being stable and grub2 approaching stability
56 matches
Mail list logo
