On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Friday 29 June 2012 01:59:37 Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > On Monday 25 June 2012 00:15:59 Mike Gilbert wrote: >> >> An official release of grub-2.00 should be coming pretty soon. I would >> >> like to keyword this for ~amd64 and ~x86 shortly after it hits the tree. >> >> I don't do much work on base system packages, so I would like some >> >> advice on how to make this as smooth as possible. >> >> >> >> My main concern is that many people probably have sys-boot/grub in >> >> @world. If grub:2 is made visible, portage will install it, and will >> >> remove grub-0.97 on the next depclean. This could be a little confusing, >> >> but should not cause any immediate damage since the copy of grub-0.97 >> >> installed in the MBR and /boot would remain intact. >> >> >> >> Is this worthy of a news item? Or I just blog about it? >> >> >> >> Anything else I need to think about here? >> > >> > do we have automatic migration/updating in place like with grub1 ? that >> > was the biggest reason i didn't unleash it for automatic installing on >> > people's systems. >> >> No, the grub2 ebuild does not automatically install the files in /boot. >> >> grub2-install performs this step, and must be run by the user. It also >> installs the MBR and embeds the core image in unused disk sectors. >> This way the MBR/core image is always kept in sync with the files in >> /boot/grub2. >> >> I don't really see a way to reliably call grub2-install from the >> ebuild, and I think this would be a bit unfriendly to the user anyway. > > grub1 doesn't seem to have a problem auto-updating itself. why is grub2 any > different ? > -mike
As far as I can tell, grub:0 only half-way updates itself; there is a large ewarn telling the user that they must take action to install the new version in the MBR. This seems a bit broken to me.
