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