Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards <at> gmail.com> writes: > > On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert <floppym <at> gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal <at> comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on > >> a partition and gave up. Is that bug fixed? > >> It insists on installing on the MBR which is unacceptable.
Hmmm. For my purposes (That is creating a PreQualifing Matrix based on the answers to some questions) it would seem that requiring installation of Grub on a partition and not the MBR would mean that only Grub-2 can be used. > > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is > > simply not supported. > So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader. > Bill Gates would be proud. Yea there does seem to a lot of that going around. The good news is there are so many qualified kernel/lowlevel/devicedriver coders around these days, it's only a matter of time before a serious fork in the bootloader/kernel world of linux occurs. It just keeps boiling and roiling, imho. ymmv. > For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a > pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy. So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work well on a 64 bit systems, (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like btrfs-native or via lvm? I'm not challenging what you are saying; I'm trying to figure out what everybody is suggestions to publish the first draft of the PreQualifying Matrix Questions and the resulting valid choices one can infer. Grub 1vs2 is a big part of that matrix. curiously, James
