On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 15:14 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:02 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> > We definitely want to keep using grubby instead of running
> >
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 09:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Has somebody filed a bz about this issue? I haven't seen one referenced in
> > the
> > thread.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805310
>
> I haven't yet managed to reproduce, though. I'm running grub2 '1.99-19',
> I i
On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> yeah, I have to admit I get the feeling we're kind of swimming against
> the tide, now. I'm not sure it would be so terrible to just decide to go
> with the upstream design, run grub2-mkconfig any time grub2.cfg needs
> updating, and tell peopl
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:02 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>>
>> > We definitely want to keep using grubby instead of running grub2-mkconfig
>> > and
>> > clobbering whatever's in your config
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:02 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>
> > We definitely want to keep using grubby instead of running grub2-mkconfig
> > and
> > clobbering whatever's in your config file every time.
>
> *shrug* I think grubby makes for an incre
On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> We definitely want to keep using grubby instead of running grub2-mkconfig and
> clobbering whatever's in your config file every time.
*shrug* I think grubby makes for an increasingly cluttered grub.cfg. With the
latest behavior I'm seeing with 2
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 11:17 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 02:27 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 00:12 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >>
> >>> It seems reasonable to consider this a grubby bug, yes?
> >>
> >>
> >>
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 11:20 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> Dne 21.3.2012 03:56, Adam Williamson napsal:
> > Properly, it ought to be versioned grub2-2.00-0.1.beta2.fc17. (Or possibly
> > grub2-2.00-0.1.~beta2.fc17, I really dunno what that tilde is for).
>
> The tilde is a debianism to mark a pre-
On 03/21/2012 02:27 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 00:12 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
It seems reasonable to consider this a grubby bug, yes?
Considering grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg produces the exact
correct resul
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 20:30 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 06:24 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > After a yum update a few minutes ago, GRUB's kinda messed up. Anyone else?
>
> Yes, it happened to me, too, after booting an up-to-the-minute anaconda
> install DVD
> for _update_ (not fresh in
> The yum update didn't update grub, but it did update the kernel. This is
> the first time you have done a kernel update via yum with the new grub2.
>
> grubby updates the grub.cfg file.
seems reproducible. My grub config is pretty empty, too.
During update, I get something an error:
grubby fat
Dne 21.3.2012 03:56, Adam Williamson napsal:
Properly, it ought to be versioned grub2-2.00-0.1.beta2.fc17. (Or possibly
grub2-2.00-0.1.~beta2.fc17, I really dunno what that tilde is for).
The tilde is a debianism to mark a pre-release.
dpkg understands version 42~foo as lower than 42.
Michal
-
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 00:12 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> > It seems reasonable to consider this a grubby bug, yes?
>
>
> Considering grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg produces the exact
> correct result, guess I'm not understanding the p
On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> It seems reasonable to consider this a grubby bug, yes?
Considering grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg produces the exact correct
result, guess I'm not understanding the purpose of grubby. Are we in transition?
Chris Murphy
--
devel ma
On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
> The yum update didn't update grub, but it did update the kernel. This is
> the first time you have done a kernel update via yum with the new grub2.
>
> grubby updates the grub.cfg file.
It seems reasonable to consider this a grubby bug, y
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 23:43 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 8:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I'm guessing it's the new grub2. I think I've seen another report of
> > problems installing new kernels after the grub2 update, but I don't see
> > any bug filed. Can someone file a bug
On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Only other thing I can think of is that there was something wonky that got
> stuffed into grub.env
/boot/grub2/grubenv has a modification time of 24 hours ago. So I don't think
that's it. Maybe there's something important stuffed into the gr
On Mar 20, 2012, at 8:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm guessing it's the new grub2. I think I've seen another report of
> problems installing new kernels after the grub2 update, but I don't see
> any bug filed. Can someone file a bug on this, please?
When I boot from Fedora-17-Beta-TC2-x86_64-
On 03/20/2012 06:24 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> After a yum update a few minutes ago, GRUB's kinda messed up. Anyone else?
Yes, it happened to me, too, after booting an up-to-the-minute anaconda install
DVD
for _update_ (not fresh install). I built the DVD to test the changes that are
claimed to
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 19:24 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> After a yum update a few minutes ago, GRUB's kinda messed up. Anyone
> else?
>
> Right off the bat I get these two (2nd is a continuation of the 1st):
>
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3253801/first.png
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3253801/second.pn
OK so I figured I'd give grub2-mkconfig a shot:
[root@f17v chris]# grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
Generating grub.cfg ...
Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64
Found initrd image: /boot/initramfs-3.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64.img
Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.3.0-0.rc7.git0.3.fc1
After a yum update a few minutes ago, GRUB's kinda messed up. Anyone else?
Right off the bat I get these two (2nd is a continuation of the 1st):
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3253801/first.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3253801/second.png
Which apparently fails, because I then get this:
http://dl.dropb
22 matches
Mail list logo
