Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 07:13 +0100, Jean François Martinez wrote: > > A GUI program would not fix your problem. If os-prober isn't finding your > > CentOS install, a GUI boot manager wouldn't either. I suggest filing a bug > > and attaching the following; > > > > In fact when run grub2-mkconfig then os-prober finds other Linux > ionstallations. It is the installer that does not finds them. > Perhaops it does not run os-prober It certainly does. (Well, it just runs grub2-mkconfig, with a perfectly normal Fedora grub install. The installer really isn't doing anything complex or 'different', here. It really just runs grub2-install, writes /etc/default/grub , and runs grub2-mkconfig. It's like 20 lines of code.) > or os-prober fails silently because > it lacks some file it needs or because mount of other partitions fails > when run under the installer. This is possible. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:54:36 -0700 Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Jan 13, 2014, at 12:56 AM, Jean François Martinez wrote: > > > > It is refreshing to see I am not alone. Grub2 has the syndrome of > > "developpers becaming infatuated and not hiving a hoot about erfs err, I > > meant users". > > In a sense, they're right, because they're making something that users > shouldn't have to get involved in or be experts at. You're not going to get a > lot of warm fuzzies at that level. They're making something for the > distributions to leverage rather than everyone having their own free for all. > Boot is difficult to solve because users in F/OSS don't like being told their > use case is insane, and that there are maybe a handful of "best practices". > > Fedora maybe should establish a booting committee to come up with sane best > practices and make recommendations to anaconda for what to build if it isn't > already built; to remove what's nutty; for docs to document alternatives that > aren't going to get development attention; and to QA for scope on testing so > they know how things are intended to work so they know what's a bug, how bad > it is, whether it's a blocker, etc. QA spends shitloads of time dealing with > boot related bugs and how things out to work. > > It'd be nice if this could be coordinated with other distros but the reality > is they're still way too hungry for eating each other's young. So at best > maybe they get their own house in order. > > > > >> Is this computer by any chance UEFI firmware based? Or is it BIOS? That > >> matters. > >> > > > > BIOS. GPT partitionning. > > That should be rather straightforward, os-prober should find your other OS's > and add them to the grub menu. Are you using LUKS for CentOS? I remember > recently trying this during Fedora 20 testing where I installed Fedora 20 > after CentOS in qemu-kvm and I did get a CentOS entry in the grub menu. > > > > > > In fact I was hinting about the need of a boot configurator in Fedora. If > > user had somethig in the menus named "Boot manager" then the subject would > > just be minor annoyance. But now a user who doesn't know about Grub2 > > intrincacies just sees he is trapped and there is no way to escape. > > > A GUI program would not fix your problem. If os-prober isn't finding your > CentOS install, a GUI boot manager wouldn't either. I suggest filing a bug > and attaching the following; > In fact when run grub2-mkconfig then os-prober finds other Linux ionstallations. It is the installer that does not finds them. Perhaops it does not run os-prober or os-prober fails silently because it lacks some file it needs or because mount of other partitions fails when run under the installer. > existing grub.cfg > grub2-install --debug /dev/sda #this will reinstall GRUB, but produces very > verbose output that should be captured to a file and attached > bash -x grub2-mkconfig #this will show some light debug output for the > script that creates grub.cfg without overwriting the existing grub.cfg > > The results from this script: > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/bootinfoscript/ > > Run that either in CentOS or Fedora. But whichever one you don't run it it, > also separately post the fstab for that system. > > You can file the bug against os-prober for now as that's the most likely > culprit and then post the bug URL to this thread. > > Chris Murphy > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Jean François Martinez -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Jan 13, 2014, at 12:56 AM, Jean François Martinez wrote: > > It is refreshing to see I am not alone. Grub2 has the syndrome of > "developpers becaming infatuated and not hiving a hoot about erfs err, I > meant users". In a sense, they're right, because they're making something that users shouldn't have to get involved in or be experts at. You're not going to get a lot of warm fuzzies at that level. They're making something for the distributions to leverage rather than everyone having their own free for all. Boot is difficult to solve because users in F/OSS don't like being told their use case is insane, and that there are maybe a handful of "best practices". Fedora maybe should establish a booting committee to come up with sane best practices and make recommendations to anaconda for what to build if it isn't already built; to remove what's nutty; for docs to document alternatives that aren't going to get development attention; and to QA for scope on testing so they know how things are intended to work so they know what's a bug, how bad it is, whether it's a blocker, etc. QA spends shitloads of time dealing with boot related bugs and how things out to work. It'd be nice if this could be coordinated with other distros but the reality is they're still way too hungry for eating each other's young. So at best maybe they get their own house in order. > >> Is this computer by any chance UEFI firmware based? Or is it BIOS? That >> matters. >> > > BIOS. GPT partitionning. That should be rather straightforward, os-prober should find your other OS's and add them to the grub menu. Are you using LUKS for CentOS? I remember recently trying this during Fedora 20 testing where I installed Fedora 20 after CentOS in qemu-kvm and I did get a CentOS entry in the grub menu. > > In fact I was hinting about the need of a boot configurator in Fedora. If > user had somethig in the menus named "Boot manager" then the subject would > just be minor annoyance. But now a user who doesn't know about Grub2 > intrincacies just sees he is trapped and there is no way to escape. A GUI program would not fix your problem. If os-prober isn't finding your CentOS install, a GUI boot manager wouldn't either. I suggest filing a bug and attaching the following; existing grub.cfg grub2-install --debug /dev/sda #this will reinstall GRUB, but produces very verbose output that should be captured to a file and attached bash -x grub2-mkconfig #this will show some light debug output for the script that creates grub.cfg without overwriting the existing grub.cfg The results from this script: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bootinfoscript/ Run that either in CentOS or Fedora. But whichever one you don't run it it, also separately post the fstab for that system. You can file the bug against os-prober for now as that's the most likely culprit and then post the bug URL to this thread. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bootloaderspec, was: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Jan 13, 2014, at 5:24 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote: > On 01/10/2014 11:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 14:30 +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote: >>> >>> That's the reason we came up with >>> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/BootLoaderSpec/ >>> >>> and even have a patch for grub2 >>> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/grub2.git/tree/0460-blscfg-add-blscfg-module-to-parse-Boot-Loader-Specif.patch >>> >>> If all bootloaders would follow the spec, nothing has to be configured >>> manually >>> and would just use the dropin directories. >> >> So what's the hold-up? >> > > For Fedora, it's the grub maintainer thinking, that you cannot add directories > in the EFI partition without registering the name, although it's only required > for subdirs in the /EFI top-level directory. My understanding is GRUB2 upstream hasn't accepted patches to use bootloaderspec drop in files, but the Fedora derived GRUB2 does. Is that incorrect? I see the bootloaderspec as not going far enough. Its two best parts: acknowledgment of the miserable linux boot UX and lack of cooperation among distros to do better; and the drop-in configuration files rather than always modifying grub.cfg. However, the spec says $BOOT shall be FAT or EXT[234] based, nothing else; and further that the kernel & initramfs will be located relative to $BOOT. This effectively breaks rollback using bootable snapshots, as well as resilient boot in the face of a drive failure because it effectively proscribes $BOOT on Btrfs, or md raid1/raid5. On UEFI, the preferred location for $BOOT is the EFI System partition, but could be a newly defined partition, shared among all distributions. But this further makes this $BOOT fragile, especially if it's the ESP, with no suggested mechanism for rescuing it or syncing it with other disks in multiple disk systems. Instead of needing to come up with a way to sync multiple ESPs (or $BOOTs) it makes more sense for $BOOT to be as generic as possible, with generic per distro configurations that point to their real configuration file location - and leave it up to the distros if they use a drop-in approach or not, within their own $BOOT. There are more concerns discussed in this thread: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=159172&p=1 Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On 01/10/2014 11:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 14:30 +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote: >> On 01/02/2014 11:32 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote: >>> I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last thing >>> I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 forces on >>> me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose between >>> installing >>> Grub on the MBR or not at all. >>> >>> In addition it didn't detect my other Linux installation so at first boot I >>> was only able to choose between Fedora 20 and Fedora 20. Fortunately >>> running >>> grub-install fixed it (ie this time my other installations were detected). >>> Sort of. First of all because Fedora 20, ie a ditribution I was _testing_ >>> was now the default and second of all because every time I upgrade the >>> kernel >>> of my _main_ distribution I am supposed to reboot on F20 and run >>> grub-install. Great. Nothing I can't fix but your average Ubuntu or Suse >>> user will just cancel installation as soon he notices F20 is going to force >>> itself on his MBR. And if the road is a one way one between Fedora and >>> Ubintu then it is doomed. >>> >> >> That's the reason we came up with >> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/BootLoaderSpec/ >> >> and even have a patch for grub2 >> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/grub2.git/tree/0460-blscfg-add-blscfg-module-to-parse-Boot-Loader-Specif.patch >> >> If all bootloaders would follow the spec, nothing has to be configured >> manually >> and would just use the dropin directories. > > So what's the hold-up? > For Fedora, it's the grub maintainer thinking, that you cannot add directories in the EFI partition without registering the name, although it's only required for subdirs in the /EFI top-level directory. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 15:21:16 -0700
Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote:
>
> > Installer sees the partitions of other Linuxes. But when rebooting after
> > installation Fedora was the only choice.
> >
> > Running grub2-mkconfig fixed it, ie other distribution became available.
> > Sort of. Problems:
> > 1) Fedora was the default and there is no easy way (that is without
> > reading the 150+ pages of Grub documentation to change that)
> > 2) If user does not know about grub2-mkconfig he will believe he is
> > "trapped" in Fedora and will be very, very angry
> > 3) Every time he runs the other distribution and updates it he needs to
> > rebooot into Fedora and run grub2-mkconfig
>
> Right, I didn't mean to indicate that multiboot on linux doesn't completely
> suck, or that linux distros are friendly to each other rather than behaving
> in a cannibalistic fashion by default. GRUB2 really isn't meant for mortal
> users, just for the members of the lunacy asylum, so this really should work
> better than it does yet here we are.
>
It is refreshing to see I am not alone. Grub2 has the syndrome of "developpers
becaming infatuated and not hiving a hoot about erfs err, I meant users". A
major problem in the Free Software field. Just take a look at this
sentence in the doc "the booter is the most important program in the
computer". No, it is a means to an end.
> Is this computer by any chance UEFI firmware based? Or is it BIOS? That
> matters.
>
BIOS. GPT partitionning
> On BIOS what's supposed to happen is anaconda calls grub2-mkconfig which in
> turn uses os-prober to find other OS's and create something sensible in
> grub.cfg. That doesn't always work for various reasons, in particular on
> UEFI. What you're probably better off doing, is editing /etc/grub.d/40_custom
> to add a very basic entry to locate the CentOS grub.conf. Something like this:
>
> menuentry 'CentOS menu' {
> search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root --hint-bios=hd0,gpt4
> --hint-efi=hd0,gpt4 --hint-baremetal=ahci0,gpt4
> d7bc9d0e-7706-44f9-b1a7-ff24b7c360a7
> legacyconfigfile $prefix/grub.conf
> }
>
>
> Not all hints are needed. Obviously change hd0,gpt4 with the right hint for
> the hard drive and partition and partition scheme for where CentOS /boot is
> located. The important one, really, is the UUID at the end, which is the file
> system UUID for the CentOS boot partition (or rootfs if /boot is a directory
> on root). The legacyconfigfile command allows GRUB2 to read legacy GRUB
> configuration files. $prefix you should replace with /boot/grub if /boot is a
> directory on rootfs or /grub if it's on its own partition.
>
> Now grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg and this entry will be added to
> your Fedora 20 grub.cfg. You'll get an entry that points to the CentOS menu.
> If you choose it, the CentOS menu list of kernels should appear. If you want
> to make this a default behavior, you'll need to read about
> $menuentry_id_option for your CentOS menu entry in the Fedora grub.cfg. By
> giving it a unique ID, you can then specify it as the default by that same id
> in /etc/default/grub.
>
> Yes it's like pulling teeth.
>
In fact I was hinting about the need of a boot configurator in Fedora. If user
had somethig in the menus named "Boot manager" then the subject would
just be minor annoyance. But now a user who doesn't know about Grub2
intrincacies just sees he is trapped and there is no way to escape.
>
> Chris Murphy
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
--
Jean François Martinez
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Jan 12, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote:
> Installer sees the partitions of other Linuxes. But when rebooting after
> installation Fedora was the only choice.
>
> Running grub2-mkconfig fixed it, ie other distribution became available.
> Sort of. Problems:
> 1) Fedora was the default and there is no easy way (that is without reading
> the 150+ pages of Grub documentation to change that)
> 2) If user does not know about grub2-mkconfig he will believe he is
> "trapped" in Fedora and will be very, very angry
> 3) Every time he runs the other distribution and updates it he needs to
> rebooot into Fedora and run grub2-mkconfig
Right, I didn't mean to indicate that multiboot on linux doesn't completely
suck, or that linux distros are friendly to each other rather than behaving in
a cannibalistic fashion by default. GRUB2 really isn't meant for mortal users,
just for the members of the lunacy asylum, so this really should work better
than it does yet here we are.
Is this computer by any chance UEFI firmware based? Or is it BIOS? That matters.
On BIOS what's supposed to happen is anaconda calls grub2-mkconfig which in
turn uses os-prober to find other OS's and create something sensible in
grub.cfg. That doesn't always work for various reasons, in particular on UEFI.
What you're probably better off doing, is editing /etc/grub.d/40_custom to add
a very basic entry to locate the CentOS grub.conf. Something like this:
menuentry 'CentOS menu' {
search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root --hint-bios=hd0,gpt4
--hint-efi=hd0,gpt4 --hint-baremetal=ahci0,gpt4
d7bc9d0e-7706-44f9-b1a7-ff24b7c360a7
legacyconfigfile $prefix/grub.conf
}
Not all hints are needed. Obviously change hd0,gpt4 with the right hint for the
hard drive and partition and partition scheme for where CentOS /boot is
located. The important one, really, is the UUID at the end, which is the file
system UUID for the CentOS boot partition (or rootfs if /boot is a directory on
root). The legacyconfigfile command allows GRUB2 to read legacy GRUB
configuration files. $prefix you should replace with /boot/grub if /boot is a
directory on rootfs or /grub if it's on its own partition.
Now grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg and this entry will be added to your
Fedora 20 grub.cfg. You'll get an entry that points to the CentOS menu. If you
choose it, the CentOS menu list of kernels should appear. If you want to make
this a default behavior, you'll need to read about $menuentry_id_option for
your CentOS menu entry in the Fedora grub.cfg. By giving it a unique ID, you
can then specify it as the default by that same id in /etc/default/grub.
Yes it's like pulling teeth.
Chris Murphy
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
Installer sees the partitions of other Linuxes. But when rebooting after installation Fedora was the only choice. Running grub2-mkconfig fixed it, ie other distribution became available. Sort of. Problems: 1) Fedora was the default and there is no easy way (that is without reading the 150+ pages of Grub documentation to change that) 2) If user does not know about grub2-mkconfig he will believe he is "trapped" in Fedora and will be very, very angry 3) Every time he runs the other distribution and updates it he needs to rebooot into Fedora and run grub2-mkconfig On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:28:34 -0700 Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote: > > > Centos 6 wasn't detected at install time. > > This is rather vague. Do you mean the installer doesn't see any of the CentOS > partitions/LVs? Or CentOS isn't included as a grub menu item after installing > Fedora 20? > > > Chris Murphy > -- Jean François Martinez -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 14:30 +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote: > On 01/02/2014 11:32 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote: > > I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last thing > > I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 forces on > > me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose between > > installing > > Grub on the MBR or not at all. > > > > In addition it didn't detect my other Linux installation so at first boot I > > was only able to choose between Fedora 20 and Fedora 20. Fortunately > > running > > grub-install fixed it (ie this time my other installations were detected). > > Sort of. First of all because Fedora 20, ie a ditribution I was _testing_ > > was now the default and second of all because every time I upgrade the > > kernel > > of my _main_ distribution I am supposed to reboot on F20 and run > > grub-install. Great. Nothing I can't fix but your average Ubuntu or Suse > > user will just cancel installation as soon he notices F20 is going to force > > itself on his MBR. And if the road is a one way one between Fedora and > > Ubintu then it is doomed. > > > > That's the reason we came up with > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/BootLoaderSpec/ > > and even have a patch for grub2 > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/grub2.git/tree/0460-blscfg-add-blscfg-module-to-parse-Boot-Loader-Specif.patch > > If all bootloaders would follow the spec, nothing has to be configured > manually > and would just use the dropin directories. So what's the hold-up? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On 01/02/2014 11:32 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote: > I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last thing > I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 forces on > me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose between installing > Grub on the MBR or not at all. > > In addition it didn't detect my other Linux installation so at first boot I > was only able to choose between Fedora 20 and Fedora 20. Fortunately running > grub-install fixed it (ie this time my other installations were detected). > Sort of. First of all because Fedora 20, ie a ditribution I was _testing_ > was now the default and second of all because every time I upgrade the kernel > of my _main_ distribution I am supposed to reboot on F20 and run > grub-install. Great. Nothing I can't fix but your average Ubuntu or Suse > user will just cancel installation as soon he notices F20 is going to force > itself on his MBR. And if the road is a one way one between Fedora and > Ubintu then it is doomed. > That's the reason we came up with http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/BootLoaderSpec/ and even have a patch for grub2 http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/grub2.git/tree/0460-blscfg-add-blscfg-module-to-parse-Boot-Loader-Specif.patch If all bootloaders would follow the spec, nothing has to be configured manually and would just use the dropin directories. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On 01/07/2014 12:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Jan 7, 2014, at 12:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: I recalled that we'd had some kind of issue with the mkconfig/install ordering before while I was writing the patch, indeed, but I couldn't recall if it was mkconfig sometimes requiring install to have been run, or the other way around...I could probably dredge it out of long-term memory if I sat down and looked for it. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-grub/2012-12/msg00018.html grub-install comes before grub-mkconfig. And /etc/default/grub needs to be written before grub-mkconfig is called. But all of those details can be ignored if the existing code for "install bootloader" is used for "do not install bootloader", while the later merely causes option --grub-setup=/bin/true to be inserted into the grub-install command. That's more robust as everyone's exercising the same code. OK, I have been following this thread with interest. For years now, I have been accomplishing the same thing (not touching the real boot MBR) in my kickstart installs by specifying that --boot-drive=sdb (for example) when the real MBR is on /dev/sda. This installs/creates all of grub2's configuration while not really installing the MBR. It is not clear to me that grubs-install really needs to run before grub2-mkconfig is run but this approach lets both happen. I like Adam's patch a lot although it obviously needs some testing to make sure that it works the way we want it to work. I have "this thing" about destroying working systems so I have a multiboot implementation based on using grub2 which facilitates multiple installs with each install still being available. Gene -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Jan 7, 2014, at 12:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I recalled that > we'd had some kind of issue with the mkconfig/install ordering before > while I was writing the patch, indeed, but I couldn't recall if it was > mkconfig sometimes requiring install to have been run, or the other way > around...I could probably dredge it out of long-term memory if I sat > down and looked for it. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-grub/2012-12/msg00018.html grub-install comes before grub-mkconfig. And /etc/default/grub needs to be written before grub-mkconfig is called. But all of those details can be ignored if the existing code for "install bootloader" is used for "do not install bootloader", while the later merely causes option --grub-setup=/bin/true to be inserted into the grub-install command. That's more robust as everyone's exercising the same code. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 00:43 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Jan 6, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 22:52 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 23:32 +0100, Jean François Martinez wrote: > >>> I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last > >>> thing I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 > >>> forces on me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose > >>> between installing Grub on the MBR or not at all. > >> > >> Why? "Not at all" is precisely the correct action for a grub2-based > >> distribution in this case. > >> > >> I think we should do grub2-mkconfig for such installs, though it's a bit > >> tricky to refactor anaconda's bootloader install code to do so. I might > >> have a shot at it if I get a spare minute, though. > > > > Well, hum, it doesn't look hard at all, in fact, at least a simple > > version. See attached patch (untested, but what could possibly go > > wrong?!). I'm not subscribed to anaconda-patches-list ATM, but CCing > > anaconda-devel-list to see what the anaconda devs think. I think it's > > reasonable to install a config file and device.map when 'skipping' > > grub2-bios bootloader install, especially given our standing advice to > > people who want to do chainload-style multi boot is "skip bootloader > > installation then setup configfile booting after install". > > There's an RFE bug floating around for this. I asked a while ago on > grub-devel@ whether grub-mkconfig depended on grub-install being done > first, and I got a kinda yesish answer that wasn't all that > convincing. But the suggestion was to use 'grub2-install > --grub-setup=/bin/true /dev/sdX' before grub2-mkconfig. This causes > all the parts of grub to be installed except the singular thing people > object to, and is the sole reason why they say they don't want a > bootloader installed - which is boot.img being written into the MBR. I'll try and find a bit of time to look into it and come up with a tested approach that can be cleanly submitted tomorrow. I recalled that we'd had some kind of issue with the mkconfig/install ordering before while I was writing the patch, indeed, but I couldn't recall if it was mkconfig sometimes requiring install to have been run, or the other way around...I could probably dredge it out of long-term memory if I sat down and looked for it. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote: > Centos 6 wasn't detected at install time. This is rather vague. Do you mean the installer doesn't see any of the CentOS partitions/LVs? Or CentOS isn't included as a grub menu item after installing Fedora 20? Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
Centos 6 wasn't detected at install time. On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 22:52:35 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 23:32 +0100, Jean François Martinez wrote: > > I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last > > thing I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 > > forces on me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose > > between installing Grub on the MBR or not at all. > > Why? "Not at all" is precisely the correct action for a grub2-based > distribution in this case. > > I think we should do grub2-mkconfig for such installs, though it's a bit > tricky to refactor anaconda's bootloader install code to do so. I might > have a shot at it if I get a spare minute, though. > > But yes, aside from not generating a grub2.cfg for you, this is > precisely the right thing to do. If you don't want Fedora to own the > MBR, then you should not install a bootloader during installation. You > should install no bootloader, and then use grub2 configfile inclusion to > boot Fedora. See > https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/Multi_002dboot-manual-config.html > . > > > In addition it didn't detect my other Linux installation so at first > > boot I was only able to choose between Fedora 20 and Fedora 20. > > What is your 'other Linux installation'? It's not like we can do > anything if you don't even say that. (But we don't really do anything > special for multi-boot configuration; we let grub do it, via os-prober. > If it didn't find your other installers, it sounds like there's a bug in > grub.) > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Jean François Martinez -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
I just want the option of grub installed in the boot partition instead of in the MBR. That is all. For now I want to keep it "subordinate". And I Don't doubt users of other distributions willing to give it a try will want it like that. Do you know how Microsoft did in order to get users moving from Lotus 123 to Excel? By playing dirty tricks? Of course but not only. First of all it made Excel capable if importing 123 files. But at least as important: it made Excel able to _export_ 123 files. This made 123 users try Excel because they were confident they could could go back in case they weren't convinced. Had Excel been unable to export 123 files they wouldn't have even tried it. (Later they became captive of their Visual Basic macros but that is another story). Well F20 just does that: making life difficult for those who want to try it. On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 00:38:26 -0700 Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2014, at 11:27 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote: > > > This is not the problem. THe problem is: a user of another distribution > > will not want to touch Fedora with a ten foot pole pnce he discovers Fedora > > messe up with his booter setup. And the parttitionner is equally bad. > > These are two areas a distribution not only in the area of bugs but in the > > are of design. And Fedora hasn't. > > Yes. Well, the unfriendliness of linux distributions toward other linux > distributions in multiboot context is not unique to Fedora. By default they > all pretty much will try to eat each other for lunch. It's distinctly > unfriendly compared to the default behavior of installing two copies of > Windows, or two copies of OS X on the same drive. It annoys me, but also > there's a kind of irony so I'm also amused. > > Anyway, some distros try to get around the problem, while it's still not at > all friendly, by forcing the installation of boot.img and block list into the > first two sectors of the /boot partition. Literally it requires grub-install > --force, otherwise it fails. The Fedora installer since F18 doesn't support > --force anymore. Other distros take the ensuing risk. > > You can do one of three things post install, starting with do not install a > boot loader when installing Fedora: > > 1. grub2-install --force /dev/sdXY and then grub2-mkconfig -o > /boot/grub2/grub.cfg. Does not require --force for Btrfs. Does not work in > any case with XFS. Unfortunately when the bootloader isn't installed by > anaconda, it also doesn't create /etc/default/grub which could be a drag to > create manually but that's the deal. There has been an RFE on this for two > releases or so, no progress or patches to help the progress. This is a bit > clunky but can be chainloaded from grub legacy or other non-grub2 > bootloaders, and it's probably what you're used to even though it's really > inelegant. > > 2. grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true /dev/sda will do everything except > obliterate the MBR gap boot loader code, leaving the existing boot loader > working. Also run grub2-mkconfig as above. No code goes in the /boot > partition VBR in this case, so you need to have your non-grub2 main > bootloader directly load the grub2 core.img; or if it is grub2 then you > should edit the main distro /etc/grub.d/40_custom with an entry using > configfile pointed to the Fedora grub.cfg and update its grub.cfg. Still > lacks /etc/default/grub. > > 3. Use extlinux as a boot parameter for the install media. This will use > extlinux which by design installs to rootfs for unified layouts, or /boot if > separate. Currently boot code already in the MBR is not replaced. (On blank > disks, parted writes some basic jump code in the MBR so new installs do boot > with no extra work.) There's an RFE asking for extlinux installs to overwrite > the MBR, FYI, so this behavior could change. In this case there's boot code > in the Fedora boot partition VBR, so you just have the main bootloader > chainload extlinux by pointing it to the boot partition. Anaconda creates a > extlinux.conf for you. So I think this is the best option. > > > > Chris Murphy > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Jean François Martinez -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Jan 6, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I dunno, it's in there for the regular grub2 install so I kept it for > the 'non-install-install' I'm suggesting. Looks optional. Not created by grub anyway. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2013-01/msg00088.html > bootloader.py is really falling-off-a-log-simple code, it wouldn't be at > all difficult to implement just about any approach to this, AFAICS. Not creating /etc/default/grub is sortof annoying because there's no automated way to create it after the fact, unlike the others. So if no bootloader only means an insert of --grub-setup=/bin/true that'd make some people happy I bet. Maybe even 10 or 20. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 00:43 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Jan 6, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 22:52 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 23:32 +0100, Jean François Martinez wrote: > >>> I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last > >>> thing I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 > >>> forces on me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose > >>> between installing Grub on the MBR or not at all. > >> > >> Why? "Not at all" is precisely the correct action for a grub2-based > >> distribution in this case. > >> > >> I think we should do grub2-mkconfig for such installs, though it's a bit > >> tricky to refactor anaconda's bootloader install code to do so. I might > >> have a shot at it if I get a spare minute, though. > > > > Well, hum, it doesn't look hard at all, in fact, at least a simple > > version. See attached patch (untested, but what could possibly go > > wrong?!). I'm not subscribed to anaconda-patches-list ATM, but CCing > > anaconda-devel-list to see what the anaconda devs think. I think it's > > reasonable to install a config file and device.map when 'skipping' > > grub2-bios bootloader install, especially given our standing advice to > > people who want to do chainload-style multi boot is "skip bootloader > > installation then setup configfile booting after install". > > There's an RFE bug floating around for this. I asked a while ago on > grub-devel@ whether grub-mkconfig depended on grub-install being done first, > and I got a kinda yesish answer that wasn't all that convincing. But the > suggestion was to use 'grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true /dev/sdX' before > grub2-mkconfig. This causes all the parts of grub to be installed except the > singular thing people object to, and is the sole reason why they say they > don't want a bootloader installed - which is boot.img being written into the > MBR. > > I've tested that combination and it's safe. So if the code were changed just > that "no bootloader" simply means *adding* --grub-setup=/bin/true and doing > everything else we already do, that'd be the easiest fix that helps the most > people IMO. > > BTW I think device.map is deprecated (?). I dunno, it's in there for the regular grub2 install so I kept it for the 'non-install-install' I'm suggesting. bootloader.py is really falling-off-a-log-simple code, it wouldn't be at all difficult to implement just about any approach to this, AFAICS. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Jan 6, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 22:52 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 23:32 +0100, Jean François Martinez wrote: >>> I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last >>> thing I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 >>> forces on me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose >>> between installing Grub on the MBR or not at all. >> >> Why? "Not at all" is precisely the correct action for a grub2-based >> distribution in this case. >> >> I think we should do grub2-mkconfig for such installs, though it's a bit >> tricky to refactor anaconda's bootloader install code to do so. I might >> have a shot at it if I get a spare minute, though. > > Well, hum, it doesn't look hard at all, in fact, at least a simple > version. See attached patch (untested, but what could possibly go > wrong?!). I'm not subscribed to anaconda-patches-list ATM, but CCing > anaconda-devel-list to see what the anaconda devs think. I think it's > reasonable to install a config file and device.map when 'skipping' > grub2-bios bootloader install, especially given our standing advice to > people who want to do chainload-style multi boot is "skip bootloader > installation then setup configfile booting after install". There's an RFE bug floating around for this. I asked a while ago on grub-devel@ whether grub-mkconfig depended on grub-install being done first, and I got a kinda yesish answer that wasn't all that convincing. But the suggestion was to use 'grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true /dev/sdX' before grub2-mkconfig. This causes all the parts of grub to be installed except the singular thing people object to, and is the sole reason why they say they don't want a bootloader installed - which is boot.img being written into the MBR. I've tested that combination and it's safe. So if the code were changed just that "no bootloader" simply means *adding* --grub-setup=/bin/true and doing everything else we already do, that'd be the easiest fix that helps the most people IMO. BTW I think device.map is deprecated (?). Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Jan 5, 2014, at 11:27 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote: > This is not the problem. THe problem is: a user of another distribution > will not want to touch Fedora with a ten foot pole pnce he discovers Fedora > messe up with his booter setup. And the parttitionner is equally bad. These > are two areas a distribution not only in the area of bugs but in the are of > design. And Fedora hasn't. Yes. Well, the unfriendliness of linux distributions toward other linux distributions in multiboot context is not unique to Fedora. By default they all pretty much will try to eat each other for lunch. It's distinctly unfriendly compared to the default behavior of installing two copies of Windows, or two copies of OS X on the same drive. It annoys me, but also there's a kind of irony so I'm also amused. Anyway, some distros try to get around the problem, while it's still not at all friendly, by forcing the installation of boot.img and block list into the first two sectors of the /boot partition. Literally it requires grub-install --force, otherwise it fails. The Fedora installer since F18 doesn't support --force anymore. Other distros take the ensuing risk. You can do one of three things post install, starting with do not install a boot loader when installing Fedora: 1. grub2-install --force /dev/sdXY and then grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg. Does not require --force for Btrfs. Does not work in any case with XFS. Unfortunately when the bootloader isn't installed by anaconda, it also doesn't create /etc/default/grub which could be a drag to create manually but that's the deal. There has been an RFE on this for two releases or so, no progress or patches to help the progress. This is a bit clunky but can be chainloaded from grub legacy or other non-grub2 bootloaders, and it's probably what you're used to even though it's really inelegant. 2. grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true /dev/sda will do everything except obliterate the MBR gap boot loader code, leaving the existing boot loader working. Also run grub2-mkconfig as above. No code goes in the /boot partition VBR in this case, so you need to have your non-grub2 main bootloader directly load the grub2 core.img; or if it is grub2 then you should edit the main distro /etc/grub.d/40_custom with an entry using configfile pointed to the Fedora grub.cfg and update its grub.cfg. Still lacks /etc/default/grub. 3. Use extlinux as a boot parameter for the install media. This will use extlinux which by design installs to rootfs for unified layouts, or /boot if separate. Currently boot code already in the MBR is not replaced. (On blank disks, parted writes some basic jump code in the MBR so new installs do boot with no extra work.) There's an RFE asking for extlinux installs to overwrite the MBR, FYI, so this behavior could change. In this case there's boot code in the Fedora boot partition VBR, so you just have the main bootloader chainload extlinux by pointing it to the boot partition. Anaconda creates a extlinux.conf for you. So I think this is the best option. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 22:52 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 23:32 +0100, Jean François Martinez wrote: > > I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last > > thing I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 > > forces on me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose > > between installing Grub on the MBR or not at all. > > Why? "Not at all" is precisely the correct action for a grub2-based > distribution in this case. > > I think we should do grub2-mkconfig for such installs, though it's a bit > tricky to refactor anaconda's bootloader install code to do so. I might > have a shot at it if I get a spare minute, though. Well, hum, it doesn't look hard at all, in fact, at least a simple version. See attached patch (untested, but what could possibly go wrong?!). I'm not subscribed to anaconda-patches-list ATM, but CCing anaconda-devel-list to see what the anaconda devs think. I think it's reasonable to install a config file and device.map when 'skipping' grub2-bios bootloader install, especially given our standing advice to people who want to do chainload-style multi boot is "skip bootloader installation then setup configfile booting after install". -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net >From 88d4843eda3a00b0474ecb26242c52e4f378add7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Williamson Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 22:57:51 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] write a device.map and bootloader config when 'skipping' grub2 install The usual reason for skipping bootloader installation is if you want to do a multi-boot configuration other than one where Fedora 'takes over' boot. People who do this are usually going to have a much easier time if they have a config file - our 'official' recommendation instead of chainloading is to use grub2's configfile functionality, and that obviously requires the OS to have a config file. --- pyanaconda/bootloader.py | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/pyanaconda/bootloader.py b/pyanaconda/bootloader.py index fe62b3a..741169d 100644 --- a/pyanaconda/bootloader.py +++ b/pyanaconda/bootloader.py @@ -1566,6 +1566,12 @@ class GRUB2(GRUB): def write(self): """ Write the bootloader configuration and install the bootloader. """ if self.skip_bootloader: +""" We should write a config file at least, as the normal +reason for skipping bootloader installation is to do advanced +multi-boot, and it's useful to have a config file. """ +self.write_device_map() +sync() +self.write_config() return if self.update_only: -- 1.8.5.2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 23:32 +0100, Jean François Martinez wrote: > I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last > thing I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 > forces on me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose > between installing Grub on the MBR or not at all. Why? "Not at all" is precisely the correct action for a grub2-based distribution in this case. I think we should do grub2-mkconfig for such installs, though it's a bit tricky to refactor anaconda's bootloader install code to do so. I might have a shot at it if I get a spare minute, though. But yes, aside from not generating a grub2.cfg for you, this is precisely the right thing to do. If you don't want Fedora to own the MBR, then you should not install a bootloader during installation. You should install no bootloader, and then use grub2 configfile inclusion to boot Fedora. See https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/Multi_002dboot-manual-config.html . > In addition it didn't detect my other Linux installation so at first > boot I was only able to choose between Fedora 20 and Fedora 20. What is your 'other Linux installation'? It's not like we can do anything if you don't even say that. (But we don't really do anything special for multi-boot configuration; we let grub do it, via os-prober. If it didn't find your other installers, it sounds like there's a bug in grub.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
This is not the problem. THe problem is: a user of another distribution will not want to touch Fedora with a ten foot pole pnce he discovers Fedora messe up with his booter setup. And the parttitionner is equally bad. These are two areas a distribution not only in the area of bugs but in the are of design. And Fedora hasn't. On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 07:05:50 -0500 Gene Czarcinski wrote: > On 01/02/2014 05:32 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote: > > I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last > > thing I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 > > forces on me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose > > between installing Grub on the MBR or not at all. > > > > In addition it didn't detect my other Linux installation so at first boot I > > was only able to choose between Fedora 20 and Fedora 20. Fortunately > > running grub-install fixed it (ie this time my other installations were > > detected). Sort of. First of all because Fedora 20, ie a ditribution I > > was _testing_ was now the default and second of all because every time I > > upgrade the kernel of my _main_ distribution I am supposed to reboot on F20 > > and run grub-install. Great. Nothing I can't fix but your average Ubuntu > > or Suse user will just cancel installation as soon he notices F20 is going > > to force itself on his MBR. And if the road is a one way one between > > Fedora and Ubintu then it is doomed. > > > If your system has multiple disk drives, there is a way to do what you > want to do. That is, have you current (production) installation and > then install Fedora 20 for testing without disturbing your current boot. > > Assuming that you current system has grub2-install /dev/sda, when you > install Fedora 20, tell the install to put the MBR on another disk such > as sdb. Everything will be installed and configured except that the MBR > on /dev/sda will not be touched. > > When you reboot into you current/production system, you need to either > enable (not disable) os-prober or add a definition to > /etc/grub.d/40_custom which will "chainload" the grub.cfg file on your > new/test system. > > This works; I use it. > > Gene > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Jean François Martinez -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
On 01/02/2014 05:32 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote: I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last thing I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 forces on me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose between installing Grub on the MBR or not at all. In addition it didn't detect my other Linux installation so at first boot I was only able to choose between Fedora 20 and Fedora 20. Fortunately running grub-install fixed it (ie this time my other installations were detected). Sort of. First of all because Fedora 20, ie a ditribution I was _testing_ was now the default and second of all because every time I upgrade the kernel of my _main_ distribution I am supposed to reboot on F20 and run grub-install. Great. Nothing I can't fix but your average Ubuntu or Suse user will just cancel installation as soon he notices F20 is going to force itself on his MBR. And if the road is a one way one between Fedora and Ubintu then it is doomed. If your system has multiple disk drives, there is a way to do what you want to do. That is, have you current (production) installation and then install Fedora 20 for testing without disturbing your current boot. Assuming that you current system has grub2-install /dev/sda, when you install Fedora 20, tell the install to put the MBR on another disk such as sdb. Everything will be installed and configured except that the MBR on /dev/sda will not be touched. When you reboot into you current/production system, you need to either enable (not disable) os-prober or add a definition to /etc/grub.d/40_custom which will "chainload" the grub.cfg file on your new/test system. This works; I use it. Gene -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Grub installation. First potential Fedora killer
I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last thing I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 forces on me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose between installing Grub on the MBR or not at all. In addition it didn't detect my other Linux installation so at first boot I was only able to choose between Fedora 20 and Fedora 20. Fortunately running grub-install fixed it (ie this time my other installations were detected). Sort of. First of all because Fedora 20, ie a ditribution I was _testing_ was now the default and second of all because every time I upgrade the kernel of my _main_ distribution I am supposed to reboot on F20 and run grub-install. Great. Nothing I can't fix but your average Ubuntu or Suse user will just cancel installation as soon he notices F20 is going to force itself on his MBR. And if the road is a one way one between Fedora and Ubintu then it is doomed. -- JF Martinez -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
