Bug#606952: lilo: conflicts with grub[-pc]
Package: lilo Version: 1:22.8-7 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 5.6.10 Previous versions of lilo (e.g. 1:22.8-8.3) used to have the following conflicts: Conflicts: manpages ( 1.29-3) Now version 1:22.8-9 introduces: Conflicts: grub-legacy, grub-pc I don't see any reason why this should be enforced, actually this avoids deployments of systems where users can choose between lilo and grub as bootloader as both can't be distributed at the same time with the conflicts mentioned above. IMO this is a bug that shouldn't reach squeeze, therefore choosing severity serious. regards, -mika- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2010-12-13t11-05...@devnull.michael-prokop.at
Bug#606952: lilo: conflicts with grub[-pc]
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org wrote on 2010-12-13 11:11: Now version 1:22.8-9 introduces: Conflicts: grub-legacy, grub-pc I don't see any reason why this should be enforced, actually this avoids deployments of systems where users can choose between lilo and grub as bootloader as both can't be distributed at the same time with the conflicts mentioned above. To manage newer kernel in Debian the system need hook scripts for kernel and initrd which can be found in /etc/kernel and /etc/initramfs/. These hook scripts will always be executed after kernel update or initrd update. If more then one bootloader is installed, each bootloader (say: grub- legacy, grub-pc or others) will try to install his code into MBR while kernel or initrd will be updated. This is not usefull. IMO this is a bug that shouldn't reach squeeze, therefore choosing severity serious. I think these defined Conflicts does not break the regular functionality of a Debian system, but provide clarification, which bootloader make the work. So the severity should be minor. I have CCed to debian-boot, perhaps there is someone who have more arguments. Have a nice day, Joachim (Germany) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#606952: lilo: conflicts with grub[-pc]
* Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de [Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:00:04PM +0100]: Michael Prokop m...@debian.org wrote on 2010-12-13 11:11: Now version 1:22.8-9 introduces: Conflicts: grub-legacy, grub-pc I don't see any reason why this should be enforced, actually this avoids deployments of systems where users can choose between lilo and grub as bootloader as both can't be distributed at the same time with the conflicts mentioned above. To manage newer kernel in Debian the system need hook scripts for kernel and initrd which can be found in /etc/kernel and /etc/initramfs/. These hook scripts will always be executed after kernel update or initrd update. If more then one bootloader is installed, each bootloader (say: grub- legacy, grub-pc or others) will try to install his code into MBR while kernel or initrd will be updated. This is not usefull. update-grub just generates the grub.cfg, the lilo package doesn't execute lilo (and therefore doesn't touch MBR) as long as there's no /etc/lilo.conf. So both packages can and do co-exist. IMO this is a bug that shouldn't reach squeeze, therefore choosing severity serious. I think these defined Conflicts does not break the regular functionality of a Debian system, It breaks existing deployment environments. but provide clarification, which bootloader make the work. So the severity should be minor. Drop the conflicts in the lilo package and everything will continue to work as it used to? regards, -mika- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#606952: lilo: conflicts with grub[-pc]
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 04:00:04PM +0100, Joachim Wiedorn wrote: Michael Prokop m...@debian.org wrote on 2010-12-13 11:11: Now version 1:22.8-9 introduces: Conflicts: grub-legacy, grub-pc I don't see any reason why this should be enforced, actually this avoids deployments of systems where users can choose between lilo and grub as bootloader as both can't be distributed at the same time with the conflicts mentioned above. To manage newer kernel in Debian the system need hook scripts for kernel and initrd which can be found in /etc/kernel and /etc/initramfs/. These hook scripts will always be executed after kernel update or initrd update. If more then one bootloader is installed, each bootloader (say: grub- legacy, grub-pc or others) will try to install his code into MBR while kernel or initrd will be updated. This is not usefull. This is a misunderstanding of GRUB. /etc/kernel/*/zz-update-grub only updates /boot/grub/grub.cfg, and never touches the MBR. The only time the grub-pc package touches the MBR is when the grub-pc package itself is installed or upgraded, and even that can be turned off in debconf. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#606952: lilo: conflicts with grub[-pc]
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org wrote on 2010-12-13 16:36: update-grub just generates the grub.cfg, the lilo package doesn't execute lilo (and therefore doesn't touch MBR) as long as there's no /etc/lilo.conf. So both packages can and do co-exist. Thank for more information - and also thanks to Colin. I only see one problem if grub-pc and lilo is full configured and then the both hook scripts will be executed, e.g.: 1) /etc/kernel/postinst.d/zz-update-grub - update grub.cfg 2) /etc/kernel/postinst.d/zz-lilo - update MBR (for lilo) Result: lilo is the bootloader 3) the package grub-pc will be updated- update MBR (for grub) Result: grub is the bootloader Is this the result that the admin want? I don't know. It breaks existing deployment environments. What do you want to say here? Please give me a (short) example. Drop the conflicts in the lilo package and everything will continue to work as it used to? Yes, apart from the case I have written above. But o.k. if nobody found my builded example realistic it is the easiest to remove the Conflicts. Have a nice day, Joachim (Germany) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#606952: lilo: conflicts with grub[-pc]
* Joachim Wiedorn ad_deb...@joonet.de [Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:53:48PM +0100]: Michael Prokop m...@debian.org wrote on 2010-12-13 16:36: update-grub just generates the grub.cfg, the lilo package doesn't execute lilo (and therefore doesn't touch MBR) as long as there's no /etc/lilo.conf. So both packages can and do co-exist. Thank for more information - and also thanks to Colin. I only see one problem if grub-pc and lilo is full configured and then the both hook scripts will be executed, e.g.: 1) /etc/kernel/postinst.d/zz-update-grub - update grub.cfg 2) /etc/kernel/postinst.d/zz-lilo - update MBR (for lilo) Result: lilo is the bootloader 3) the package grub-pc will be updated- update MBR (for grub) Result: grub is the bootloader Is this the result that the admin want? I don't know. It's better than not having the option to have grub and lilo both installed at the same time at all, IMHO. The fact that iff lilo.conf is present lilo will be executed can be documented proberly with an according warning in for example the long description of the package as well as in the README.Debian. It breaks existing deployment environments. What do you want to say here? Please give me a (short) example. Think of a chroot style installer (working offline and without udebs) where grub and lilo both are available but only one of them will be configured as bootloader (either because of user's choice or because lilo does not support the specific setup and grub will be used therefore). Drop the conflicts in the lilo package and everything will continue to work as it used to? Yes, apart from the case I have written above. But o.k. if nobody found my builded example realistic it is the easiest to remove the Conflicts. I understand your concerns and would love to have an configurable option to specify which bootloader should be the *active* one so it's possible to have grub, lilo, extlinux, $WHATEVER_BOOTLOADER installed at the same time but execute only the hooks/scripts of the according/specified bootloader. Am I right that there's also no configureable option (chmod -x ... doesn't count as such) to disable the scripts inside /etc/kernel at all? (For example /etc/kernel/postinst.d/zz-update-grub bugs on me, see #597084.) regards, -mika- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#606952: lilo: conflicts with grub[-pc]
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org wrote on 2010-12-13 18:18: It's better than not having the option to have grub and lilo both installed at the same time at all, IMHO. The fact that iff lilo.conf is present lilo will be executed can be documented proberly with an according warning in for example the long description of the package as well as in the README.Debian. That is an idea. Am I right that there's also no configureable option (chmod -x ... doesn't count as such) to disable the scripts inside /etc/kernel at all? (For example /etc/kernel/postinst.d/zz-update-grub bugs on me, see #597084.) The hook script is an ordinary shell script. We could use a condition: exist lilo and is lilo configured for zz-update-grub, or exist grub and is grub configured for zz-lilo. But it seems such changes are to late for Squeeze. They concern more packages. Have a nice day, Joachim (Germany) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
