On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 15.12.2011 10:40, schrieb Dieter Plaetinck: >> Why exactly don't we list partitions anymore? >> (see >> https://github.com/Dieterbe/aif/commit/55190c0c81fc76f8b2b3983e790f2c7aacf4e69f) >> IIRC you said it shouldn't be really needed, but turns out it is: >> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/25726 >> see also >> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-releng/2011-March/001557.html >> >> so we should probably list again all blockdevices (partitions and devices >> themselves) > > Last time I tried installing grub into a partition (which is a while > ago), it kept complaining a lot and refusing to install. Grub is weird > that way. > > My rationale is this: > > 1.) You want to chainload grub: There is no need to chainload grub. If > you want to use grub from a different system, you can just add Arch to > that grub instance manually. > > 2.) You don't want to chainload grub: Put it in the MBR then. > > More importantly: Don't use grub, use syslinux (which will always > install in the /boot partition). >
Chainloading is useful because it allows each distribution to manage its menu.lst separately. Consider a user running Debian, Ubuntu, and Arch. Debian and Ubuntu both include several past kernels in their menus as well as a handful of other recovery options. By installing one system-wide GRUB instance to the MBR and distribution-specific instances to each partition, the upgrade procedure is greatly simplified. When booting, this user first selects their desired distribution, then selects their desired kernel/fallback/recovery mode. Combining all three into one menu causes clutter. Yes, there are other (better and worse) ways to handle this, but why _remove_ functionality? I never experienced trouble installing GRUB to a partition. -- Des
