On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 09:30:01AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
Quoting Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com:
I agree GRUB should be very careful not to destroy potentially valuable
data. However, that's not to say FAT install is important. Typically
our install doesn't collide or interfere with
Quoting Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com:
I agree GRUB should be very careful not to destroy potentially valuable
data. However, that's not to say FAT install is important. Typically
our install doesn't collide or interfere with any filesystem, it's only
a few corner cases that do, and IMO we
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 01:09:20AM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
Sorry for posting some not very-related ideas in one mail and
top-posting but I want to go to bed ASAP now. FAT install is
important. A friend asked me on RMLL to install GRUB on his
partionless SD card. This card
Pavel Roskin a crit:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 10:08 +0200, Yves BLUSSEAU wrote:
Hi,
there is a "bug" in boot.img: if you install the boot.img into the
volume boot sector of a FAT32 partition instead of MBR (i know it's a
bad idea), you "destroyed" the partition (even grub will not
Sorry for posting some not very-related ideas in one mail and
top-posting but I want to go to bed ASAP now. FAT install is
important. A friend asked me on RMLL to install GRUB on his
partionless SD card. This card was formatted with Symbian and
contained no FAT32 string. I actually see no reason
Hi,
there is a bug in boot.img: if you install the boot.img into the
volume boot sector of a FAT32 partition instead of MBR (i know it's a
bad idea), you destroyed the partition (even grub will not recognize it).
The problem is that the FAT32 FileSystem need a 87 bytes long BPB
instead of the
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 10:08 +0200, Yves BLUSSEAU wrote:
Hi,
there is a bug in boot.img: if you install the boot.img into the
volume boot sector of a FAT32 partition instead of MBR (i know it's a
bad idea), you destroyed the partition (even grub will not recognize it).
I think a much
Quoting Pavel Roskin pro...@gnu.org:
* change the minor version of the GRUB_BOOT_VERSION 4.0 = 4.1
I don't see where it's checked. What's the effect of the change?
P.S. I think eventually grub-setup should learn to use ELF images.
Then the boot version could be a discardable
