On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 05:55:57PM -0600, Brian Hagen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Re the comments from Ken and Bruce, first, thank you for them. I
> will quote here from LFS 9.1, section 2.4.1.4 comments on partitioning:
>
> =======================
>
> /boot – Highly recommended. Use this partition to store kernels and
> other booting information. To minimize potential boot problems with
> larger disks, make this the first physical partition on your first disk
> drive. A partition size of 100 megabytes is quite adequate.
>
> =======================
>
> So, although I read this during the previous LFS 9.1 processes,
> since it states "highly recommended", not mandatory, I did not use it.
If something can be avoided, it is not manadatory - no matter what
pain avoiding it may cause (for me, see my aversion to gtk-doc).
The difference with LFS is that we do not support upgrading an
existing LFS system (although people have done that) - every binary
distro I am aware of will upgrade in-place, similarly in gentoo and
its derivatives you can 'make world'.
I've been here a long time, and on occasion I've had a machine
without a separate /boot partition - but I think the last one was a
mac powerpc64 (not officially supported) with 64-bit kernel and
32-bit userspace (unlike cross-lfs, which supported that
architecture but wanted to use either pure64 (i.e. all 64-bit) or
multilib. The last time I tried to boot that machine, the 3.10
kernel was still in Long Term Support (but was poor for a
single-core ppc64), so my experience is by no means current, but it
could be made to work and I've seen nothing since then which forces
builders to separate /boot.
> After all, I have never seen a Linux distro install that requires that
> type of setup. I have installed numerous ones from CD/DVD, and having
> /dev/sda1 or /dev/hda1 (as the case may be) designated as "/" was always
> adequate.
>
We think that for LFS it still is, but you need to adapt
instructions where appropriate - like Bruce said in relation to
grub.cfg.
> So, does this mean that going through LFS without having /boot as
> the first partition on the first drive basically dooms the grub-install
> sequences to a useless result? I would really like to know.
>
> Brian
>
I think that one one of my machines I've had separate /boot without
it being the first partition (ISTR that machine had been used for
some version of windows, and then that objected when I upgraded the
hardware - so sda1 on a DOS-style disk, and probably sda2, were for
windows and sda5 or later was used for /boot. On gpt disks, the
partiitoning is of course different (a 'spacer' partition at the
start marked as 'bios boot' or something like that).
If your whole system is on sda1 on a DOS disk, I think you have to
point grub to /boot/vmlinuz-something whereas on a separate /boot
partition the location is just vmlinuz-something. But also,
specifying the root affects where grub is looking. So, in the
LFS-9.1 section 8.4.4 there are settings for LFS on sda2 without a
separate /boot partiiton -
insmod ext2 (so that grub can read ext2|3|4 partitions)
set root=(hd0,2) (partition 2, counting from 1, of first disk
(counting from 0)
root=/dev/sda2 - passed to the kernel after grub loads it, telling
it where to look for /sbin/init.
In your case with LFS on sda1, I think you need
set root=(hd0,1)
root=/dev/sda1
ĸen
--
The Laird o’Phelps spent Hogmanay declaring he was sober,
Counted his feet to prove the fact and found he had one foot over.
-- Louis MacNeice, Bagpipe Music
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
