On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Heiko Baums <li...@baums-on-web.de> wrote: > Am 21.04.2015 um 20:06 schrieb Mike Gilbert: >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Heiko Baums <li...@baums-on-web.de> wrote: >>> Am 21.04.2015 um 01:27 schrieb Mike Gilbert: >>> >>>> Better yet, upgrade to grub:2 already. >>> >>> Why? As long as grub legacy is working there's no need to upgrade. I'm >>> still running grub legacy, too. >>> >> >> In this context, because you can build it without having any 32-bit >> libs installed. > > That's what grub-static is for. So why would I upgrade to grub:2 if > grub:0 is still working? >
You don't have to, other than avoiding stuff like this, or for the additional features. While all the guides seem to be written around grub2-mkconfig you can still use grub the old way and just create your own config file. Grub2 is more flexible in terms of supported filesystems and such - which is helpful if you're using lvm, mdadm, btrfs, and so on. However, I don't think it accepts the old config file syntax so there is some effort required to migrate. You'll of course want a rescue boot device (but I'd say that applies whether you're migrating or not). I started out with a grub1-like approach and ended up moving to the grub2 style. I just install my kernels with make install and then let grub2-mkconfig set up my config files. The only issue I found is that if you're playing with git kernels it doesn't always order the versioning right (a.b.c+ isn't > a.b.c and things like this). However, you can add your own rules to get entries auto-created which can be helpful. -- Rich
