Re: grub-installer/grub2_instead_of_grub_legacy template
Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 18:55 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke: Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 10:17 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke: Now that squeeze probable will freeze in December, I somehow have the feeling it won't use grub2 by default. So I suggest to change the grub2 instead of grub-legacy template. It shouldn't say anymore that grub2 is experimental. Ubuntu karmic is now using it by default and there aren't any critical bug reports (neither on LP or debbugs). Unfortunately I'm not at all good at these things and my english isn't that great either. I think it should mention that grub2 has support for UUIDs,ext4,lvm and RAID and that it lacks currently password support and savedefault. Or maybe the last part should be left out, so the translations won't need to be updated if we implement it. Ok now that Otavio agreed on IRC that it shouldn't say anymore that grub2 itself is experimental but the d-i support for it, here's a concrete proposal: GRUB 2 is the next generation of GNU GRUB. It has interesting new features like UUIDs, LVM, mdraid and ext4, but it lacks password and savedefault support. Note that the Debian-Installer support for it is still experimental. If you choose to install it, you should be prepared for breakage, and have an idea on how to recover your system if it becomes unbootable. You're advised not to try this in production environments. By the way what do these `# :sl2:' comments mean? man po-debconf doestn't document them. Any comments or should we just hope that grub2 can be the default for squeeze and we get rid of that template? -- Felix Zielcke Proud Debian Maintainer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: grub-installer/grub2_instead_of_grub_legacy template
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Felix Zielcke wrote: Now that squeeze probable will freeze in December, I somehow have the feeling it won't use grub2 by default. So I suggest to change the grub2 instead of grub-legacy template. It shouldn't say anymore that grub2 is experimental. Ubuntu karmic is now using it by default and there aren't any critical bug reports (neither on LP or debbugs). There are still important features that grub supports, but grub2 does not. IMO those should be resolved *before* this is done. See: http://bugs.debian.org/477094 Note that that BR may well be incomplete. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: grub-installer/grub2_instead_of_grub_legacy template
Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 10:29 +0200 schrieb Frans Pop: On Thursday 30 July 2009, Felix Zielcke wrote: Now that squeeze probable will freeze in December, I somehow have the feeling it won't use grub2 by default. So I suggest to change the grub2 instead of grub-legacy template. It shouldn't say anymore that grub2 is experimental. Ubuntu karmic is now using it by default and there aren't any critical bug reports (neither on LP or debbugs). There are still important features that grub supports, but grub2 does not. IMO those should be resolved *before* this is done. See: http://bugs.debian.org/477094 Note that that BR may well be incomplete. Ah I forgot about the meta-bug. But anyway, any reason against changing the template text? I'd really like that more people test/use it. Popcon still only lists ~2800 users. -- Felix Zielcke Proud Debian Maintainer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: grub-installer/grub2_instead_of_grub_legacy template
On Thursday 30 July 2009, you wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 10:29 +0200 schrieb Frans Pop: Ah I forgot about the meta-bug. But anyway, any reason against changing the template text? I'd really like that more people test/use it. Yes. As long as grub2 does not for example pass on boot options (such at noapic), its integration in D-I is essentially broken and thus the experimental warning 100% valid and necessary. A desire for more testing is not a justification to ignore known issues or to put users in situations from which they may have trouble recovering. If you want that warning removed, I suggest you (or others) provide patches to fix the known issues. Cheers, FJP P.S. Please do not CC me on replies. It should be obvious that I read the list. See the Debian mailing list code of conduct. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: grub-installer/grub2_instead_of_grub_legacy template
Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 10:46 +0200 schrieb Frans Pop: On Thursday 30 July 2009, you wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 10:29 +0200 schrieb Frans Pop: Ah I forgot about the meta-bug. But anyway, any reason against changing the template text? I'd really like that more people test/use it. Yes. As long as grub2 does not for example pass on boot options (such at noapic), its integration in D-I is essentially broken and thus the experimental warning 100% valid and necessary. Unfortunately I'm not a sed expert but that should be easy to fix. if [ $defopt_params ]; then sed -i s!^\(# defoptions=.*\)!\1 $defopt_params! $ROOT/boot/grub/$menu_file fi if [ $kopt_params ]; then sed -i s!^\(# kopt=.*\)!\1 $kopt_params! $ROOT/boot/grub/$menu_file fi That needs to be only modified to change GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT= and GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX= in $ROOT/etc/default/grub A desire for more testing is not a justification to ignore known issues or to put users in situations from which they may have trouble recovering. If you want that warning removed, I suggest you (or others) provide patches to fix the known issues. What other known issues? I said that we could add a sentence that grub2 lacks savedefault and password. I don't mind if multipath and dmraid gets added their too. So people know it then. Are you talking also about 502446? Any reason against not to apply that patch? And looking over the bug list of grub2 about the stuff which doestn't just waits for a confirmation of the repoter there aren't any problems why grub-installer should tell that grub2 is experimental. Switching to grub2 by default would instantly solve a few reports against grub-installer. But if you want we could say something like grub2 has still known problems and isn't that well tested then grub-legegacy. or similiar. The initial template is from August 2006. At that time I even didn't know grub2 exists, but I can image that it was really experimental at that time. We fixed a bunch of bugs since I joined. Probable you didn't recently (!) tried out grub2, did you? Cheers, FJP P.S. Please do not CC me on replies. It should be obvious that I read the list. See the Debian mailing list code of conduct. Sorry but why does the list has a stand reply to the sender instead of to the list? -- Felix Zielcke Proud Debian Maintainer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: grub-installer/grub2_instead_of_grub_legacy template
On Thursday 30 July 2009, Felix Zielcke wrote: Unfortunately I'm not a sed expert but that should be easy to fix. if [ $defopt_params ]; then sed -i s!^\(# defoptions=.*\)!\1 $defopt_params! $ROOT/boot/grub/$menu_file fi if [ $kopt_params ]; then sed -i s!^\(# kopt=.*\)!\1 $kopt_params! $ROOT/boot/grub/$menu_file fi That needs to be only modified to change GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT= and GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX= in $ROOT/etc/default/grub See recent discussion started by Colin about the problem that D-I is normally not allowed to change the config files of other applications. That issue needs to be resolved. What other known issues? See the meta BR... One other is no support for bootloader password, but I guess that is something that could be accepted as it is only an expert option. But all basic functionality should be there, and respecting boot parameters (also quiet and vga=) is very much basic functionality. The initial template is from August 2006. At that time I even didn't know grub2 exists, but I can image that it was really experimental at that time. We fixed a bunch of bugs since I joined. The question is not if grub2 itself is still experimental, but that its integration in D-I is incomplete, which makes its use *in D-I* experimental. Users should be able to expect no regressions relative to grub when the switch is made. Probable you didn't recently (!) tried out grub2, did you? No. Why should I have? I _know_ that grub2 has been improving, but I also know that nothing has been done to complete its integration in D-I. P.S. Please do not CC me on replies. It should be obvious that I read the list. See the Debian mailing list code of conduct. Sorry but why does the list has a stand reply to the sender instead of to the list? It does not. That is something your MUA is responsible for: it should recognize that a mail is list mail (based on headers) and act accordingly (although different lists/communities do have different policies). Kmail automatically replies correctly only to the list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: grub-installer/grub2_instead_of_grub_legacy template
Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 11:42 +0200 schrieb Frans Pop: On Thursday 30 July 2009, Felix Zielcke wrote: Unfortunately I'm not a sed expert but that should be easy to fix. if [ $defopt_params ]; then sed -i s!^\(# defoptions=.*\)!\1 $defopt_params! $ROOT/boot/grub/$menu_file fi if [ $kopt_params ]; then sed -i s!^\(# kopt=.*\)!\1 $kopt_params! $ROOT/boot/grub/$menu_file fi That needs to be only modified to change GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT= and GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX= in $ROOT/etc/default/grub See recent discussion started by Colin about the problem that D-I is normally not allowed to change the config files of other applications. That issue needs to be resolved. Where? In 533287 message #53 he says: Let's discount the question of /etc/default/grub; it's not at issue here, and the solution you're using now for it is not questionable AFAICS. On the debian-policy mailing list there isn't either a reply to this. We use now ucf for it, so the problem is solved now AFAICS. What other known issues? See the meta BR... Uhm maybe we are talking about different things? I don't want to argue if we should make grub2 now the default or not. I only want to change the template that it doestn't say anymore experimental software. I don't know Ubuntu that much, but do they actually use high experimental software as default in their main repository and not universe/multiverse? Serious question. The meta BR says: Fix blocked by 470894: grub-installer: user parameters are not added to grub.cfg for grub2, 477090: grub-installer: no support for dmraid and multipath for grub2, 477092: grub-installer: does not support setting password for grub2, 483971: support for device-mapper multipath 470894 can be solved and all others can be mentioned in the template as I already said. One other is no support for bootloader password, but I guess that is something that could be accepted as it is only an expert option. As I said now twice, we can mention that in the template. Why doesn't it do this already if that's so important to people? They should know that then if we offer them the choice about grub-legacy or grub2. But all basic functionality should be there, and respecting boot parameters (also quiet and vga=) is very much basic functionality. Ok vga= is for some people a problem with the new linux loader. But upstream's solution for this is a gfxpayload variable which is in the form hightxwidth,depth, like 1024x768x32 The initial template is from August 2006. At that time I even didn't know grub2 exists, but I can image that it was really experimental at that time. We fixed a bunch of bugs since I joined. The question is not if grub2 itself is still experimental, but that its integration in D-I is incomplete, which makes its use *in D-I* experimental. Users should be able to expect no regressions relative to grub when the switch is made. Then the templete should say that the integration into D-I is experimental (or not complete) not that grub2 itself is experimental software. Probable you didn't recently (!) tried out grub2, did you? No. Why should I have? I _know_ that grub2 has been improving, but I also know that nothing has been done to complete its integration in D-I. If you don't have any problems with grub-legacy or need/want savedefault/fallback support you don't need to. But it case it breaks it can be sometimes easier to fix, because it has for example an `ls' command. You can use grub-emu to get a small impression of the commandline, it's included in grub-common which grub-legacy depends on since lenny. P.S. Please do not CC me on replies. It should be obvious that I read the list. See the Debian mailing list code of conduct. Sorry but why does the list has a stand reply to the sender instead of to the list? It does not. That is something your MUA is responsible for: it should recognize that a mail is list mail (based on headers) and act accordingly (although different lists/communities do have different policies). Kmail automatically replies correctly only to the list. Well on the upstream grub-devel list, the Reply-To is correctly set to the list. So this is something configurable with the list software. But okay on -project and -devel it's the same so seems like on Debian this isn't wanted by default for dumb MUAs like Evolution. I file a wishlist report about it. -- Felix Zielcke Proud Debian Maintainer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: grub-installer/grub2_instead_of_grub_legacy template
Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 10:17 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke: Now that squeeze probable will freeze in December, I somehow have the feeling it won't use grub2 by default. So I suggest to change the grub2 instead of grub-legacy template. It shouldn't say anymore that grub2 is experimental. Ubuntu karmic is now using it by default and there aren't any critical bug reports (neither on LP or debbugs). Unfortunately I'm not at all good at these things and my english isn't that great either. I think it should mention that grub2 has support for UUIDs,ext4,lvm and RAID and that it lacks currently password support and savedefault. Or maybe the last part should be left out, so the translations won't need to be updated if we implement it. Ok now that Otavio agreed on IRC that it shouldn't say anymore that grub2 itself is experimental but the d-i support for it, here's a concrete proposal: GRUB 2 is the next generation of GNU GRUB. It has interesting new features like UUIDs, LVM, mdraid and ext4, but it lacks password and savedefault support. Note that the Debian-Installer support for it is still experimental. If you choose to install it, you should be prepared for breakage, and have an idea on how to recover your system if it becomes unbootable. You're advised not to try this in production environments. By the way what do these `# :sl2:' comments mean? man po-debconf doestn't document them. -- Felix Zielcke Proud Debian Maintainer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
