Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05.07.2012 06:26, Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:02:28 -0400 Mike Gilbert
flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
That is exactly what Doug (cardoe) proposed, and he is working
on the docs for that.
Ah yes, it's been a long-winded thread. :)
jer
I got a little busier this past weekend than I had intended
(loving that leap second bug) but here's the first draft:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/docs/grub2-migration.xml
It will be integrated into the official Gentoo doc set once I get
a nod from the docs guys.
Hi,
according to my /etc/grub.d/10_linux grub2 (or better the
grub2-mkconfig script) searches for the following kernel names:
/vmlinuz-*, /boot/vmlinuz-* and /boot/kernel-* for x86 and x86_64 and
the same plus /vmlinux-* and /boot/vmlinux-* for other arches.
The accepted names for initrd/initramfs are: initrd.img-${version},
initrd-${version}.img, initrd-${version}.gz,initrd-${version},
initramfs-${version}.img, initrd.img-${alt_version},
initrd-${alt_version}.img, initrd-${alt_version},
initramfs-${alt_version}.img, initramfs-genkernel-${version},
initramfs-genkernel-${alt_version},
initramfs-genkernel-${GENKERNEL_ARCH}-${version} and
initramfs-genkernel-${GENKERNEL_ARCH}-${alt_version}.
I (as a user) would propose to reflect this . I would also give
information about /etc/defaults/grub since that is the config file
that you need to enable persistent, customized kernel options (will be
automatically appended when you run grub2-mkconfig) and grub specific
options like the timeout or the graphic settings.
Thank you for your effort. I really look forward for grub2 becoming
the default (whatever that is in gentoo ;) ) option.
WKR
Hinnerk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP9UI8AAoJEJwwOFaNFkYc2kcH/jKTjWpkqxx4rJxjHwGHDm0N
3BNe+o8/DbMbiyTG/fAwVmq4EdzucqWtoF5fRrNRkNd3OGg9+dZcoUeOVdZfWKpY
evJF1/iuetr7XuHDJhjnAn2FLNfb7jzuLlUEXiGLYLvgtu+O5NUgLQyv3ut+eVMU
JCRM41/BchnfnZdFTPWreL6QimpxQVBT4HDff5K0YYqrVEePLOufIt8ct81c2oAQ
3KSC4uPb9bvrM+3S3NVtyYUZgy60QrtzuWXM0S4eWEodU1pO5xnczqt7FCGlnnw1
G83aDcXI1oBdvVnMbhHJtAQi9EBvUn/q56gYMbtREFTXDjUvKZ0ozfu1lmEKGk8=
=/ZBF
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:02:28 -0400 Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: That is exactly what Doug (cardoe) proposed, and he is working on the docs for that. Ah yes, it's been a long-winded thread. :) jer I got a little busier this past weekend than I had intended (loving that leap second bug) but here's the first draft: http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/docs/grub2-migration.xml It will be integrated into the official Gentoo doc set once I get a nod from the docs guys. -- Doug Goldstein
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:02:28 -0400 Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: That is exactly what Doug (cardoe) proposed, and he is working on the docs for that. Ah yes, it's been a long-winded thread. :) jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:15:23 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: 3. grub2-install calls grub2-bios-setup which installs boot.img into the MBR and embeds core.img into the sectors immediately after the MBR. Ok, that isn't all that unlike grub1 - that is what stage1.5 is. It just sounds like these aren't static files that are copied out of /boot/grub, but rather they're built on-demand from other files there. Grub1 figures out which static stage1.5 you need based on where /boot is. They probably went to a more dynamic model so that they can support stuff like LVM+MD+LUKS+etc without having every permutation of static code. I'm not sure how smart the bootloader code ends up being - it wouldn't surprise me if at time of install the installer does all the work and just loads a simple bootloader on the diagnostic cylinder with just enough smarts to find /boot if it hasn't changed. And if in this complex transition something goes wrong, we could opt for the solution Ubuntu provided years ago, which was to add to the grub1 boot loader configuration an entry which would call the grub2 boot loader, so that grub2's correct function could be ascertained before the definitive switch to grub2 and removal of the grub1 code. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:15:23 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: 3. grub2-install calls grub2-bios-setup which installs boot.img into the MBR and embeds core.img into the sectors immediately after the MBR. Ok, that isn't all that unlike grub1 - that is what stage1.5 is. It just sounds like these aren't static files that are copied out of /boot/grub, but rather they're built on-demand from other files there. Grub1 figures out which static stage1.5 you need based on where /boot is. They probably went to a more dynamic model so that they can support stuff like LVM+MD+LUKS+etc without having every permutation of static code. I'm not sure how smart the bootloader code ends up being - it wouldn't surprise me if at time of install the installer does all the work and just loads a simple bootloader on the diagnostic cylinder with just enough smarts to find /boot if it hasn't changed. And if in this complex transition something goes wrong, we could opt for the solution Ubuntu provided years ago, which was to add to the grub1 boot loader configuration an entry which would call the grub2 boot loader, so that grub2's correct function could be ascertained before the definitive switch to grub2 and removal of the grub1 code. That is exactly what Doug (cardoe) proposed, and he is working on the docs for that.
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
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 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
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.
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: 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. In what way. As far as I can tell I haven't gotten a grub upgrade in the last 5-7 years. Since it is built static on amd64 (or at least it was when I last installed it) nothing ever breaks. Maybe if I changed my boot partition to a different filesystem it might have issues, but grub just strikes me as one of those aint-broke-don't-fix things. By all means push out the new version, make docs, ewarn the user and all that. I just don't see the point in having something messing with the MBR unless it is more likely to break if we don't. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: 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. In what way. As far as I can tell I haven't gotten a grub upgrade in the last 5-7 years. Since it is built static on amd64 (or at least it was when I last installed it) nothing ever breaks. Maybe if I changed my boot partition to a different filesystem it might have issues, but grub just strikes me as one of those aint-broke-don't-fix things. Right. I was contradicting vapier's statement that grub:0 automatically updates itself. It doesn't. It does copy all of the images to /boot so that the grub shell can be used to install an MBR image. grub:2 no longer has an interactive shell and grub2-install must be used. Therefore, copying files to /boot in the ebuild is completely pointless.
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: It does copy all of the images to /boot so that the grub shell can be used to install an MBR image. grub:2 no longer has an interactive shell and grub2-install must be used. Therefore, copying files to /boot in the ebuild is completely pointless. Does grub2-install place any stage files where they need to be, or are they no longer needed? I haven't experimented with it yet. Normally grub1 needs to be able to find the stage2 file, and that has to be on a partition the stage1.5 can read (I believe stage1.5 is in the diagnostic cylinder - it only uses the files in /boot during installation). I'm not sure if grub2 completely eliminates the need to have a normal partition somewhere, in a situation where raid+lvm+etc are used. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On 06/29/2012 02:38 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: It does copy all of the images to /boot so that the grub shell can be used to install an MBR image. grub:2 no longer has an interactive shell and grub2-install must be used. Therefore, copying files to /boot in the ebuild is completely pointless. Does grub2-install place any stage files where they need to be, or are they no longer needed? I haven't experimented with it yet. Normally grub1 needs to be able to find the stage2 file, and that has to be on a partition the stage1.5 can read (I believe stage1.5 is in the diagnostic cylinder - it only uses the files in /boot during installation). I'm not sure if grub2 completely eliminates the need to have a normal partition somewhere, in a situation where raid+lvm+etc are used. Rich GRUB2 does away with the conventional stage files. It also wants a special BIOS Boot Partition in order to function. That is where it stores the equivalent of the stage2 bootcode. That is similar to FreeBSD's bootloader. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: GRUB2 does away with the conventional stage files. It also wants a special BIOS Boot Partition in order to function. That is where it stores the equivalent of the stage2 bootcode. That is similar to FreeBSD's bootloader. Now, that should make for a fun migration! Fortunately I do have a separate boot already, and I guess I can be daring and overwrite it in place and trust in grub2 to still find the kernel elsewhere. Those without a separate boot and without any free space are likely to find this to be painful. Resizing partitions isn't exactly risk-free... Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: It does copy all of the images to /boot so that the grub shell can be used to install an MBR image. grub:2 no longer has an interactive shell and grub2-install must be used. Therefore, copying files to /boot in the ebuild is completely pointless. Does grub2-install place any stage files where they need to be, or are they no longer needed? I haven't experimented with it yet. Normally grub1 needs to be able to find the stage2 file, and that has to be on a partition the stage1.5 can read (I believe stage1.5 is in the diagnostic cylinder - it only uses the files in /boot during installation). grub2 eliminates the stage_1_5 files. Instead, a core image is built by grub2-install. Here's how it works. 1. grub2-install copies all grub modules to /boot/grub2. This can be any file system readable by GRUB. 2. grub2-install calls grub2-mkimage which combines any modules necessary to access /boot into core.img. 3. grub2-install calls grub2-bios-setup which installs boot.img into the MBR and embeds core.img into the sectors immediately after the MBR. I'm not sure if grub2 completely eliminates the need to have a normal partition somewhere, in a situation where raid+lvm+etc are used. You do need a filesystem that grub2 can access through some combination of modules, and an area in which to embed core.img. The grub2 manual has a pretty good explanation. http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/Installing-GRUB-using-grub_002dinstall.html http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/BIOS-installation.html http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/Images.html
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On 06/29/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: GRUB2 does away with the conventional stage files. It also wants a special BIOS Boot Partition in order to function. That is where it stores the equivalent of the stage2 bootcode. That is similar to FreeBSD's bootloader. Now, that should make for a fun migration! Fortunately I do have a separate boot already, and I guess I can be daring and overwrite it in place and trust in grub2 to still find the kernel elsewhere. Those without a separate boot and without any free space are likely to find this to be painful. Resizing partitions isn't exactly risk-free... Rich I think Richard is incorrect here; grub2 can live on any filesystem, so long as some combination of modules can access it. Do you know what function the BIOS Boot Partion serves? It is necessary when using GRUB2's ZFS support. I was under the impression that it stored boot code. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/29/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: GRUB2 does away with the conventional stage files. It also wants a special BIOS Boot Partition in order to function. That is where it stores the equivalent of the stage2 bootcode. That is similar to FreeBSD's bootloader. Now, that should make for a fun migration! Fortunately I do have a separate boot already, and I guess I can be daring and overwrite it in place and trust in grub2 to still find the kernel elsewhere. Those without a separate boot and without any free space are likely to find this to be painful. Resizing partitions isn't exactly risk-free... Rich I think Richard is incorrect here; grub2 can live on any filesystem, so long as some combination of modules can access it. Do you know what function the BIOS Boot Partion serves? It is necessary when using GRUB2's ZFS support. I was under the impression that it stored boot code. Based on a Google search I think BIOS Boot Partition is a GPT thing. Not relevent if you have an MBR partition table.
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On 06/29/2012 05:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/29/2012 03:04 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: GRUB2 does away with the conventional stage files. It also wants a special BIOS Boot Partition in order to function. That is where it stores the equivalent of the stage2 bootcode. That is similar to FreeBSD's bootloader. Now, that should make for a fun migration! Fortunately I do have a separate boot already, and I guess I can be daring and overwrite it in place and trust in grub2 to still find the kernel elsewhere. Those without a separate boot and without any free space are likely to find this to be painful. Resizing partitions isn't exactly risk-free... Rich I think Richard is incorrect here; grub2 can live on any filesystem, so long as some combination of modules can access it. Do you know what function the BIOS Boot Partion serves? It is necessary when using GRUB2's ZFS support. I was under the impression that it stored boot code. Based on a Google search I think BIOS Boot Partition is a GPT thing. Not relevent if you have an MBR partition table. This is correct. I had forgotten that I switched to GPT on my systems because ZFS partitions drives using GPT by default. Allowing people to specify the partitioning without requiring them to do it manually is on my to do list. However, those who wish to use GPT on their systems will need a BIOS Boot Partition to store the boot code. That will not apply to older systems that are switching to GRUB2 unless they also change their partition tables. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
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. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org writes: My main concern is that many people probably have sys-boot/grub in @world. How about a news item advising people to put sys-boot/grub:0 in their world file to retain grub:0? 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? pgpGRtgZ6kn8y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:35:19 -0400 Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/25/2012 12:15 AM, 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? Note: The Gentoo Documentation Project has indicated that they do not want to add anything to the handbook until we are somewhat close to stabilizing grub:2. That's at least a couple months away. I think it would be best to move sys-boot/grub:2 to sys-boot/grub2. That should avoid confusion. If our plan is to replace grub1 with grub2 at some point, that seems incorrect. In other words, if grub2 is 'natural progress' from grub1. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org 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? Note: The Gentoo Documentation Project has indicated that they do not want to add anything to the handbook until we are somewhat close to stabilizing grub:2. That's at least a couple months away. Mike, Since Grub Legacy and Grub 2 are slotted, Portage won't remove the older version. Even if it removes the older one, everything necessary is installed into /boot and the MBR already. The best route forward would be to instruct people to use grub2-install (but whatever the flag is to prevent MBR installation). Have people generate their grub.cfg with grub2-mkconfig and then put a chain loader into the Grub Legacy configs so that they can test Grub 2 and then once they test it tell them to install Grub 2 into the MBR and remove Grub Legacy. I'll gladly work with you on this. IMHO, it might be a good plan to unmask and ~arch one of the release candidates with an aim to get Grub 2.0.0 fully released with docs. -- Doug Goldstein
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Doug Goldstein car...@gentoo.org wrote: Since Grub Legacy and Grub 2 are slotted, Portage won't remove the older version. Even if it removes the older one, everything necessary is installed into /boot and the MBR already. Portage will remove the older slot the next time the user runs emerge --depclean unless sys-boot/grub:0 is added to the world file. I'm looking for a good way to communicate this to the user. How about this: For ~arch, we do an ewarn in pkg_postinst if grub:0 is installed. For stable, we do a news item. The best route forward would be to instruct people to use grub2-install (but whatever the flag is to prevent MBR installation). Have people generate their grub.cfg with grub2-mkconfig and then put a chain loader into the Grub Legacy configs so that they can test Grub 2 and then once they test it tell them to install Grub 2 into the MBR and remove Grub Legacy. Yeah, I vaguely remember trying this when I first installed grub:2. You can prevent the MBR installation by stubbing out the grub-setup call. For example: grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true /dev/sda You would then load /boot/grub2/i386-pc/core.img just like a Linux kernel from menu.lst. If you (or anyone) wants to test and verify that this actually works, that would be great. I'll gladly work with you on this. IMHO, it might be a good plan to unmask and ~arch one of the release candidates with an aim to get Grub 2.0.0 fully released with docs. That sounds like a good idea.
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:15:59 -0400 Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org 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? Note: The Gentoo Documentation Project has indicated that they do not want to add anything to the handbook until we are somewhat close to stabilizing grub:2. That's at least a couple months away. I guess you could prepare some docs already, and put them e.g. on the Wiki. Then it would be a really good idea to release a news item and point users to those information and inform them about possible choices. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:15:59 -0400 Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org 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? Note: The Gentoo Documentation Project has indicated that they do not want to add anything to the handbook until we are somewhat close to stabilizing grub:2. That's at least a couple months away. I guess you could prepare some docs already, and put them e.g. on the Wiki. Then it would be a really good idea to release a news item and point users to those information and inform them about possible choices. There is already an elog message referring users to the wiki: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GRUB2_Quick_Start
[gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
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? Note: The Gentoo Documentation Project has indicated that they do not want to add anything to the handbook until we are somewhat close to stabilizing grub:2. That's at least a couple months away. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] grub:2 keywords
On 06/25/2012 12:15 AM, 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? Note: The Gentoo Documentation Project has indicated that they do not want to add anything to the handbook until we are somewhat close to stabilizing grub:2. That's at least a couple months away. I think it would be best to move sys-boot/grub:2 to sys-boot/grub2. That should avoid confusion. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
