Am 10.06.2009 um 21:44 schrieb Lars Wirzenius: > ke, 2009-06-10 kello 15:21 -0400, John Moser kirjoitti: >> Every argument for putting Grub or the kernel on a separate partition >> has been based around the idea that these files are somehow more >> important than, say, /bin/sh > > Putting the kernel (i.e., /boot) on a separate partition is often > mandated by the BIOS not being able to read all of a large hard > disk. I > have a motherboard from 2008 that has that problem, so it's not > ancient > history, either.
Additionally, if you have more than one installation of Ubuntu on the same platter, you really want to share /boot with both installations. Not doing so means two /boot's, while you can address only one of those in the master boot record. As /boot also contains kernels, you end up booting grub from one partition and the kernel from the other partition. Kernel install scripts can't deal with such a situation, you end up sync'ing those two /boots manually after each update of one of the kernels. Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss