Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

up work on this. Now I'm nosing around the current Grub2 method for ideas. Meanwhile, the unconditional destroying of extlinux.conf on update gave me the grief again. :-/ -- Cheers, Feri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe

Bug#745588: ITP: grub-choose-default -- A GUI for easily changing the default in grub2

changing the default in grub2 A GUI for changing the default for grub2, either permanently or for the next reboot only. It is specially useful for making one time excursion to another OS and safely returning to the Debian homeland on the next reboot. It can be considered a GUI version of grub-set

Bug#744376: ITP: grub-customizer -- Grub Customizer is a graphical interface to configure the GRUB2/BURG settings and menuentries.

tomize the bootloader (GRUB2 or BURG). Grub Customizer is a graphical interface to configure the GRUB2/BURG settings and menuentries Features: * move, remove or rename menuentries (they stαy updatable by update-grub) * edit the contents of menuentries or create new ones (internally it edits the

Re: [cjwatson debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

Hi, On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On the other hand, porters are often packagers, and many packagers are > much more familiar with cowbuilder or pbuilder as it’s *much* simpler > to set up, and also provides good isolation. How so? With sbuild-createchroot, sbuild is really simple

Re: [cjwatson debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

Simon McVittie debian.org> writes: > (I would recommend that porters doing manual builds use sbuild if at all > possible, though, to be as close as possible to what a buildd would have > done.) On the other hand, porters are often packagers, and many packagers are much more familiar with cowbuil

Re: [cjwatson debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

On 24/03/14 16:17, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Allowing things with mismatching changelog vs. distribution into the > archive will introduce problems by the way, since cowbuilder just > copies the distribution from the changelog Thanks for the useful data point, but this isn't about allowing things t

Re: [cjwatson debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

Simon McVittie debian.org> writes: > tl;dr: extensive discussion of why this mistake is easy to make and > why sbuild can't trivially fix it; Raphael Hertzog suggests making Allowing things with mismatching changelog vs. distribution into the archive will introduce problems by the way, since cow

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

On 12/03/14 09:24, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > * Simon McVittie [140311 12:21]: >> Russ said >>> I think we only want to do this check if the first line of the >>> Changes file says UNRELEASED, since there are valid use cases >>> for a mismatch otherwise. > > I have a package which branched

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

* Simon McVittie [140311 12:21]: > Russ said > > I think we only want to do this check if the first line of the > > Changes file says UNRELEASED, since there are valid use cases for a > > mismatch otherwise. > > but I don't know what those valid use-cases are. BinNMUs in testing > for a package u

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

figure out how to back > this out. > > -- > Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Colin Watson > To: debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org > Cc: > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

Simon McVittie writes: > On 11/03/14 10:50, Colin Watson wrote: >> "Distribution: unstable". Whoops. It is far too easy to make this >> mistake with sbuild if you're not quite paying absolutely perfect >> attention. My apologies ... > On the Lintian side of things, I attached a patch to >

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

Simon McVittie writes ("Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]"): > On the sbuild side: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=529281 > > tl;dr: extensive discussion of why this mistake is easy to make and > why sbuild can&#x

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

On 11/03/14 10:50, Colin Watson wrote: > "Distribution: unstable". Whoops. It is far too easy to make > this mistake with sbuild if you're not quite paying absolutely > perfect attention. My apologies ... On the Lintian side of things, I attached a patch to

Re: [cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:50:46AM +, Colin Watson wrote: > Anyway, while this was unintentional, I don't think it's actually > dreadful. testing has 2.00-22, which is reasonably solid, and I wanted > to make sure wheezy ships with at least GRUB 2.02 anyway, Cyril points out that I mean jessi

[cjwat...@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]

SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:39:33 +0000 Source: grub2 Binary: grub2 grub-linuxbios grub-efi grub-common grub2-common grub-emu grub-emu-dbg grub-pc-bin grub-pc-dbg grub-pc grub-rescue-pc grub-coreboot-bin grub-coreboot-dbg grub-coreboot grub-efi-ia32-bin gr

Re: grub2 on zfs root

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Игорь Пашев wrote: > Suddenly, I've found that grub2 "knows" about kopensolaris [1] So does dpkg: $ dpkg-architecture -L | grep -i opensolaris | head -n2 kopensolaris-i386 kopensolaris-ia64 > Could anybody say how it happened? > [1] ht

grub2 on zfs root

Suddenly, I've found that grub2 "knows" about kopensolaris [1] Could anybody say how it happened? Any experience on using Grub2 with ZFS root? And even more: on OpenSolaris? [1] http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/grub2 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.

Re: GRUB2

27;m pretty sure this is allot a Debian problem. I think all changes > from grub legacy (that worked for many) and grub2 (?) is ALL debian > upstream changes (there is no grub 2 per say, it's all debian > changes, so somewhere debian should say how it works?) This is completely and utt

Re: GRUB2

;t see that in the manual either. So I'm embarrassed to learn it was posting to a channel I had NO WISH to be in. sorry to all please forgive, and Thanks Bob very much, and have fun ! John Bob Proulx wrote: p.s. highly optional read :) whoever said an internet full of "

Re: GRUB2

Hi, John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell (27/12/2011): > what's the deal? yeah, what's the deal? Please stop hijacking threads for random babbling. Thank you already. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: GRUB2

On Ma, 27 dec 11, 13:45:25, John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell wrote: > what's the deal? You should not hijack a thread, since it minimizes the chances to get useful answers, as you post will be hidden among others I would advise to post such questions to the debian-user list, debian-devel is

GRUB2

what's the deal? grub2 won't install on an HD (one newer pc yes, 2 others no) grub-rescue doesn't work without "xorisso" (i don't mkisofs scripts anymore, no CD drive thanks) I want grub2 on floopy. where are debian's instructions or FAQ for it please?

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Mi, 22 iun 11, 22:06:53, Daniel Baumann wrote: > On 06/22/2011 08:10 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > The various *dm packages do this quite well in my experience and I don't > > see any -common package. > > which is extremely stupid in every way there is (code duplication, l10n > dublication, et

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On 06/22/2011 08:10 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > The various *dm packages do this quite well in my experience and I don't > see any -common package. which is extremely stupid in every way there is (code duplication, l10n dublication, etc.). -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 09:08:01PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:07:52AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > And the first behaviour is > > definitely the correct default, as installing a boot loader package > > almost always means yo

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:07:52AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > And the first behaviour is > definitely the correct default, as installing a boot loader package > almost always means you want to install the boot loader in the boot > sector. The boot secto

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Mi, 22 iun 11, 13:37:35, Daniel Baumann wrote: > > but there should be only one bootloader at the time be allowed to write > itself automatically (upon updates) to the systems mbr, which is why > i've talked with colin about that debconf proposing to create a > bootloader-common package (or wha

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Didier Raboud wrote: > could win32-loader (either in it's "CD" or in its "standalone (on mirrors)" > version) help to setup this ? If so, a detailed bug would be appreciated. Will need to think about it a bit (and the box I do this on is having disk errors), perha

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On 06/22/2011 03:07 AM, YunQiang Su wrote: >> Did you? Try 'dpkg-reconfigure grub-pc' ;) >> > yes it works. BUT: > > When installing, user will usually install grub in MBR or they have > no choice to set it when install (install from LiveCD). If you install with a low debconf priority, or use p

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

Le mercredi, 22 juin 2011 12.01:08, Paul Wise a écrit : > My strategy with Windows is to let it have the MBR and use Debian's > setup.exe to create an item for Debian in the Windows boot menu and > chainload Debian grub-pc from the Windows grub installed by setup.exe. > Seems to work find even thou

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On 06/22/2011 01:20 PM, Evgeni Golov wrote: > I e.g. have extlinux installed as a package, but not in the mbr (for > preparing bootable usb drives with unetbootin). > The same might apply for grub(.*) because you want to create a bootable > efi disk while your machine has pc bios and vice versa. a

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On 06/22/2011 06:07 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > More packages means more user confusion. And the first behaviour is > definitely the correct default, as installing a boot loader package > almost always means you want to install the boot loader in the boot > sector. > > What is your use case for th

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:57 PM, michael kapelko wrote: > Windows writes to MBR no matter what. Mac OS X does it too, I guess? > Because of Windows, I always install Linux after Windows. I guess > there's no way around here, Windows doesn't detect Linux anyway. I > don't know if Mac OS X does it.

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

2011/6/22 YunQiang Su : > Yes, if only for Linux distro, it can be done like this. > Then if there are Windows and Mac OS X? Windows writes to MBR no matter what. Mac OS X does it too, I guess? Because of Windows, I always install Linux after Windows. I guess there's no way around here, Windows do

Re: Bug#631224: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:07:52AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 11:33 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > > When update to grub-pc 1.99-8, it write my MBR, then I report a bug. > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=631224 > > > > and Colin Watson tell me that it

Re: Bug#631224: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 03:09:12PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > When installing, user will usually install grub in MBR or they have no > choice to set it when install (install from LiveCD). If you mean the Ubuntu live CD, IIRC it does have an option for this although only when you're doing manual p

Re: Bug#631224: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 02:26:31PM +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > But once upgrade Ubuntu, the MBR is taken place, and once then upgrade > Debian, it's back. 'dpkg-reconfigure grub-pc' on the Ubuntu side, then - it's not that complicated. -- Colin Watson [cjwat

Re: Bug#631224: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 02:06:13PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: > grub-pc will write MBR every time when triggered, grub-pc does not use any dpkg triggers. > and grub-pc-bin will not update grub entry after the kernel is > updated. - It is weird when you have grub installed to an alternative > place, th

Re: Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

The second behavior means that: when update/reinstall grub or update/install/reinstall kernel will call update-grub but not call grub-install. What if the updated grub is incompatible with the bootloader installed by a previous version of grub? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ..

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

> > I suspect you should have grub installed in a single distro only, > e.g., only Debian, or only Ubuntu. Since there's only one MBR, thre's > only one bootloader, you don't need to have it in every distro. > > Yes, if only for Linux distro, it can be done like this. Then if there are Windows and

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

2011/6/22 YunQiang Su : > > now I installed one Debian Sid/Experimental and an Ubuntu 11.10. > I perfer Debian to take control my MBR. > > But once upgrade Ubuntu, the MBR is taken place, and once then upgrade > Debian, it's back. > > I hate this behavior. > > I believe that the MBR must be taken c

Re: Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

> What if the updated grub is incompatible with the bootloader installed by a > previous version of grub? > If so, it should not be called grub2 again. -- YunQiang Su -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

> Did you? Try 'dpkg-reconfigure grub-pc' ;) > yes it works. BUT: When installing, user will usually install grub in MBR or they have no choice to set it when install (install from LiveCD). and I can not find out any necessity to run grub-install every time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Mi, 22 iun 11, 14:06:13, Aron Xu wrote: > > grub-pc will write MBR every time when triggered, and grub-pc-bin will > not update grub entry after the kernel is updated. - It is weird when > you have grub installed to an alternative place, then you upgrade a > package and it write MBR regardless

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

> Maybe what needs to be fixed is grub not writing to your “alternative > place”? > now I installed one Debian Sid/Experimental and an Ubuntu 11.10. I perfer Debian to take control my MBR. But once upgrade Ubuntu, the MBR is taken place, and once then upgrade Debian, it's back. I hate this behav

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On mer., 2011-06-22 at 14:06 +0800, Aron Xu wrote: > > What is your use case for the second behaviour? > > > > grub-pc will write MBR every time when triggered, and grub-pc-bin will > not update grub entry after the kernel is updated. - It is weird when > you have grub installed to an alternative

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On mer., 2011-06-22 at 14:10 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > > What is your use case for the second behaviour? > > > The second behavior means that: when update/reinstall grub or > update/install/reinstall kernel will call update-grub but not call > grub-install. Let me rephrase what Ben asked: why

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 11:33 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: >> When update to grub-pc 1.99-8, it write my MBR, then I report a bug. >> >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=631224 >> >> and Colin Watson tell me that it's a new feature. >> Y, it maybe, he tell to install grub-pc-bin only,

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > More packages means more user confusion.  And the first behaviour is > definitely the correct default, as installing a boot loader package > almost always means you want to install the boot loader in the boot > sector. > > What is your use ca

Re: Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 11:33 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: > When update to grub-pc 1.99-8, it write my MBR, then I report a bug. > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=631224 > > and Colin Watson tell me that it's a new feature. > Y, it maybe, he tell to install grub-pc-bin only, but t

Whether should grub2 write MBR automatic

When update to grub-pc 1.99-8, it write my MBR, then I report a bug. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=631224 and Colin Watson tell me that it's a new feature. Y, it maybe, he tell to install grub-pc-bin only, but this package has no kernel hook even. Here is my suggestion: m

Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:39:58 -0400 (EDT), Vincent Danjean wrote: > On 07/06/2010 17:37, Stephen Powell wrote: >> But for a kernel install or reconfigure, it is the responsibility of the >> kernel maintainer scripts to invoke the bootloader. See also, for example, >> linux-image-2.6.26-2-s390.posti

Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)

On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 14:00 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 13:39 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote: > > > On 07/06/2010 17:37, Stephen Powell wrote: > > > > But for a kernel install or reconfigure, it is the responsibility of the >

Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 13:39 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote: > > On 07/06/2010 17:37, Stephen Powell wrote: > > > But for a kernel install or reconfigure, it is the responsibility of the > > > kernel maintainer scripts to invoke the bootloader. See also, f

Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)

On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 13:39 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote: > On 07/06/2010 17:37, Stephen Powell wrote: > > But for a kernel install or reconfigure, it is the responsibility of the > > kernel maintainer scripts to invoke the bootloader. See also, for example, > > linux-image-2.6.26-2-s390.postinst,

Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)

On 07/06/2010 17:37, Stephen Powell wrote: > But for a kernel install or reconfigure, it is the responsibility of the > kernel maintainer scripts to invoke the bootloader. See also, for example, > linux-image-2.6.26-2-s390.postinst, where zipl is assigned as the bootloader > on line 38. This real

Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:33:52 -0400 (EDT), Holger Levsen wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > thanks for stepping up maintaining lilo in Debian! I hope you'll manage this > well. Um, thanks; but I don't understand the reassignment of bug number 505609 to package initramfs-tools. If you read my previous po

Re: new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)

reassign 505609 initramfs-tools thanks Hi Stephen, thanks for stepping up maintaining lilo in Debian! I hope you'll manage this well. On Montag, 7. Juni 2010, Stephen Powell wrote: > Perhaps I can offer a solution here. Since William obviously doesn't wish > to maintain this package any longer

new lilo package maintainer? (was lilo removal in squeeze or please test grub2)

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:22:46 -0400 (EDT), sean finney wrote: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 01:44:05AM +0400, William Pitcock wrote: >> Have fun. When you have a release that actually has merit, it can be >> reconsidered for inclusion in Debian. >> >> In the meantime, the original plan continues. > >

Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Wed, 26 May 2010, Stephen Powell wrote: > You're missing the point. The main selling point to management > is that Linux is free. If they have to buy new backup software > in order to accommodate Linux' backup requirements, that will > kill it on the spot. Whatever boot loader I use must not

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

emself, though. /* also grub2 works pretty well for me but nevertheless I've no idea why we need to remove good old stable lilo */ Alexey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debi

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:56:38 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: >So all this "lilo needs to die now, everyone quickly get grub2" talk does >look a fair bit premature. Cynics might say amateurish or worse, YMMV. >grub2 won't magically get better if we just throw more users at it.

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:08:21AM +0100, Chris Carr wrote: > On 25/05/2010 10:00, Harald Braumann wrote: >> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:39:52PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: >>> (4) Users need to test grub2 now. >> >> I've been using grub2 for quite some time

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 04:43:32PM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:40:41 -0400 (EDT), Andreas Barth wrote: > > Stephen Powell wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:39:52 -0400 (EDT), William Pitcock wrote: > >>> After some discussion about lilo on #debian-devel in IRC, it has pre

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 04:51:09PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > >Right, but also note that there's an open RFH on grub2 #248397 > >(retitled/refreshed recently, despite the low bug number). > > As long as there are tested-and-ready-to-apply[1] patches rotting away > in th

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:40:41 -0400 (EDT), Andreas Barth wrote: > Stephen Powell wrote: >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:39:52 -0400 (EDT), William Pitcock wrote: >>> After some discussion about lilo on #debian-devel in IRC, it has pretty >>> much been determined that kernel sizes have crossed the line pas

Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Sat, 29 May 2010 10:51:10 -0400 (EDT), Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:42:34 -0400 (EDT), Stephen Powell wrote: >> >> You're missing the point. The main selling point to management >> is that Linux is free. If they have to buy new backup software >> in order to accommodate Linux' b

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

and well documented. (But neither is the case!) Would it be possible to move (perhaps optionally) the extra grub sectors into an (perhaps dummy) partition (this question is for the grub2-people)? Would that be ok for you? > As for the claims that kernels are too big now, I find that hard to &g

Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:42:34 -0400 (EDT), Stephen Powell wrote: >You're missing the point. The main selling point to management >is that Linux is free. If they have to buy new backup software >in order to accommodate Linux' backup requirements, that will >kill it on the spot. Whatever boot load

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Sun, 23 May 2010 16:26:48 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 02:08:59PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >> This also means that the grub2 maintainers (both Debian and Upstream) >> need to work on the regressions that exist in regard to moving from >> lil

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:44:11 -0400 (EDT), Peter Samuelson wrote: > Stephen Powell wrote: >> It *does* recognize lilo and has special logic to patch lilo after >> the restore so that the machine will boot. > > So can this software be fooled into thinking it is dealing with lilo? > Would it be suffi

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

[Stephen Powell] > It *does* recognize lilo and has special logic to patch lilo after > the restore so that the machine will boot. So can this software be fooled into thinking it is dealing with lilo? Would it be sufficient to rename /boot/extlinux/extlinux.sys to /boot/maps or something? -- Pet

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

Le vendredi 28 mai 2010 à 10:45 -0400, Stephen Powell a écrit : > Unfortunately, logical backups of a Linux machine using the extlinux > boot loader do not work with our backup/restore software. The master boot > record and partition boot sector are restored correctly, but > /boot/extlinux/extlinu

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:12:27 -0400 (EDT), Stephen Powell wrote: > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> No software is entirely without cost ... >> volunteers work on whatever they like ... >> your specific requirements may differ from their goals ... >> volunteers are rarely concerned with "market sh

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

2010/5/26 Joachim Wiedorn : > Harald Braumann wrote on Tue, 25 May 2010: >> >> On simple standard system -- one disk, one kernel in /boot, no fancy >> stuff -- it works quite well. > > This is enough to use grub2 for new installing of Debian. > >> On oth

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 07:10:37PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 06:13:13PM +0200, Jordi Mallach wrote: > > Colin added himself to the Uploaders field when I requested him to do so, > > as he's been in charge of Ubuntu's switch to GRUB2 for

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

you start complaining on the >>> Syslinux and the Grub mailing lists. I suppose it will be heard. >> >> Does either grub2 or syslinux allow for single-key booting? > > It is available in the experimental branch of grub2. To quote upstream: hpa: It's trivial to add su

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

In gmane.linux.debian.devel.general Stephen Powell wrote: > But like lilo it stays out of unallocated (and therefore not backed up) > sectors. The boot block of extlinux is installed in the boot sector > of a partition, and the second stage loader occupies a file within the > partition. It does

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

nd the Grub mailing lists. I suppose it will be heard. > > Does either grub2 or syslinux allow for single-key booting? It is available in the experimental branch of grub2. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe&quo

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

In article , Ferenc Wagner wrote: > >Sorry, I don't trust in the future of LILO myself. If there's anything >which only LILO can do, I recommend you start complaining on the >Syslinux and the Grub mailing lists. I suppose it will be heard. Does either grub2 or syslinu

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:23:04 -0400 (EDT), Daniel Baumann wrote: > On 05/26/2010 03:36 AM, Stephen Powell wrote: >> ... >> That works for now; but if a package upgrade for extlinux is ever >> downloaded, I'm afraid that new versions of the hook scripts will >> be copied into these directories which

Re: extlinux (was: Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2"))

Bjørn Mork, le Wed 26 May 2010 10:45:49 +0200, a écrit : > Just comparing http://git.kernel.org/?p=boot/syslinux/syslinux.git with > http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/r/grub/trunk/grub/ should IMHO give more > than enough information to choose extlinux over grub2 I don't understand

extlinux (was: Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2"))

ething similar to the config file. But running update-extlinux would remove it on every kernel upgrade. Anyway, I understand that this issue is now solved. It has puzzled me for a while that grub2 has been chosen over extlinux as the default x86 bootloader, but didn't know until this discussion

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On 05/26/2010 03:36 AM, Stephen Powell wrote: > That works for now; but if a package upgrade for extlinux is ever > downloaded, I'm afraid that new versions of the hook scripts will > be copied into these directories which are marked executable, and > my hand-made configuration file will get wiped

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:10:38 -0400 (EDT), Ferenc Wagner wrote: > Stephen Powell wrote: >> ... I installed the mbr package ... > > The extlinux package itself also contains an mbr.bin, which you can use > (it's strong point is probably EBIOS support). So it does. Well, I've now installed extlinux

Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

> > > > Original Message >From: zlinux...@wowway.com >To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-u...@lists.debian.org, >debian-b...@lists.debian.org >Subject: Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test >grub2") >Date: Tue, 25 May 2010

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

Harald Braumann wrote on Tue, 25 May 2010: > > On simple standard system -- one disk, one kernel in /boot, no fancy > stuff -- it works quite well. This is enough to use grub2 for new installing of Debian. > On other systems it often breaks miserably. Updates leave my system > u

Re (3): lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

From: Stephen Powell Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:42:34 -0400 (EDT) > The backup people are Windows people, and they'd love an > excuse to complain to management about the backup requirements > of my Linux servers. Implies that you don't have responsibility for backing the Linux systems. Too b

Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Tue, 25 May 2010 12:03:17 -0400 (EDT), Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > Stephen Powell wrote: >> >> You're missing the point. The main selling point to management >> is that Linux is free. > > No software is entirely without cost. Free Software is no exception. There > are usually no up-fro

Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:51:11 -0400 (EDT), Mark > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Stephen Powell wrote: >> On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:29:54 -0400 (EDT), Peter Easthope wrote: >>> Stephen Powell wrote: (3) The need for special backup requirements will be used by the opponents of Linux at my p

Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:29:54 -0400 (EDT), Peter Easthope wrote: > > Stephen Powell wrote: > >> (3) The need for special backup requirements will be > >> used by the opponents of Linux at my place of employment > >> to oppose further deployme

Re: Re (2): lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:29:54 -0400 (EDT), Peter Easthope wrote: > Stephen Powell wrote: >> (3) The need for special backup requirements will be >> used by the opponents of Linux at my place of employment >> to oppose further deployments of Linux, ... > > What about the carrot approach? Find an

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

Stephen Powell writes: > Ferenc Wagner wrote: > >> Stephen Powell writes: >>> >>> Both grub-legacy and grub-pc use sectors on the hard disk outside of >>> the master boot record and outside of a partition ... >> >> You may want to try extlinux, it works much like LILO in this respect. > > It doe

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:22:13AM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: [snip] > Speaking of documentation, that seems to be its main weakness. > Documentation is sketchy and spread out over a number of different files. > I would have had a hard time configuring it if it weren't for > correct guesses bas

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

at the Debian lilo package carries many patches >> for bug fixes that are alleviated by standardizing on grub2, this >> seems like the best option for Debian. > > Agreed: dead (and buggy) softwares must be out of the distribution. > Whatever happens. If LILO regains upstream coders,

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

Ferenc Wagner wrote: > Stephen Powell writes: >> >> Both grub-legacy and grub-pc use sectors on the hard disk outside of >> the master boot record and outside of a partition ... > > You may want to try extlinux, it works much like LILO in this respect. Well, I tried extlinux last night, and I am

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

Hello, On 05/23/2010 03:44 PM, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Darren Salt wrote: > > Hi, > >> Working fine here on i386, whether booting a stock kernel (testing with >> 2.6.33 from experimental) or a custom kernel. I've not checked a stock kernel >> on amd64 for some time now, but I've seen no problem

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

On 25/05/2010 10:00, Harald Braumann wrote: Hi, On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:39:52PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: (4) Users need to test grub2 now. I've been using grub2 for quite some time now on several different systems with mixed success. [snip] Because of this, coupled with the

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

Hi, On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:39:52PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: > (4) Users need to test grub2 now. I've been using grub2 for quite some time now on several different systems with mixed success. On simple standard system -- one disk, one kernel in /boot, no fancy stuff -- it wor

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

I demand that Ferenc Wagner may or may not have written... [snip] > You may want to try extlinux, it works much like LILO in this respect. It > lacks a convenient configuration system, but that of grub-legacy would be > easy to adapt, and I actually plan to work on this. Given an upload of a 4.00

  1   2   >