Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 06:13 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Pardon, I didn't notice that this thread was from old digest :(.
> Evolution did show unread mails  u n s o r t e d  and I didn't take a
> look at the date :(.
> 
> My bad :(, sorry.

I'm embarrassed. There's no need to discuss this old GRUB thingy again.
I simply was half asleep, woken up some minutes before and didn't
realized my fallacy :S. 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1322285808.3237.28.camel@debian

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Ralf Mardorf]

Pardon, I didn't notice that this thread was from old digest :(.
Evolution did show unread mails  u n s o r t e d  and I didn't take a
look at the date :(.

My bad :(, sorry.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1322284432.3237.22.camel@debian

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 18:40 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:19:15 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Camaleón  wrote:
> >> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:27:18 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Camaleón  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > For grub2, there's also just one file to tweak, "/etc/default/grub",
> > and the CLI tools are more powerful.
> 
>  Are your sure?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, for the great majority of users.
> >>
> >> Ah, that's explains all. But I'd say a great percentage of Debian users
> >> do not search for what majority of users seek.
> > 
> > I'd include the majority of Debian users too in my statement.
> 
> That looks to be a bit optimistic :-)
>  
> > Changing the files in "/etc/grub.d/" 
> 
> Hey, hey... we were talking about what can be done by editing "one" file, 
> that is, "/etc/default/grub". Of course, if we start by editing all the 
> stuff at /etc/grub.d/* we can make whatever we want but that was not my 
> point nor my complain ;-)
> 
> > (1) changes the order of your grub menu entries (for example, by
> > renumbering the files), (2) changes the text displayed in those entries
> > (by editing the naming parts of the scripts; for example getting rid of
> > the superfluous "GNU/Linux"in the menu entries), (3) adds custom menu
> > entries (like the guy who added runlevels 3-5 earlier in this thread).
> 
> And I will add that all of the above is not what all common users do.
>  
> > "/etc/default/grub" controls the options of the "linux" line, the
> > default entry, the menu timeout, the screen resolution, the creation of
> > "recovery" or "os-prober" entries, and the fonts and graphics (if you
> > have/want them).
> 
> I, personally, only use to change the kernel line stanza and set some 
> default options to prevail after updates (in GRUB's legacy parlance, that 
> was "kopt=" value).
> 
> >>> You can edit the files in "/etc/grub.d/" - or rename them or add to
> >>> them - but the canonical way of changing grub settings is through
> >>> "/etc/default/grub".
> >>
> >> Yep, but not all the available options are available from there, or so
> >> says the docs.
> > 
> > Which options?
> 
> I mean, for instance, "GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER". It is not documented in 
> the same file, but there are others. For those, you have to run "info -f 
> grub -n 'Simple configuration'" to have access to all of the tweakable 
> variables.
> 
> >>> I used to edit 10_linux, 30_os-prober, and "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig"
> >>> in order to customize grub2 to my liking but I've given up.
> >>
> >> You see? There will be ocassions where the user have to jump from
> >> "/etc/ default/grub" to /etc/grub.d and find out what file in there to
> >> modify. With GRUB legacy there were only 1 or 2 files, less error
> >> prone, IMO.
> > 
> > See above regarding the use of "/etc/grub.d/".
> 
> Yes, but that involves more than one file.
>  
> > Again, for the majority of users, in grub1 you edit
> > "/boot/grub/menu.lst" and in grub2 you edit "/etc/default/grub". 
> 
> Mmm... for editing the kernel line you will have to jump to /etc/grub.d/* 
> and is one of the most performed actions...
> 
> > The latter's more logical from a design perspective. When I first used
> > Debian, I thought "what's all this rubbish in "menu.lst"? Having the
> > options governing a section of a file included in that file is nicely
> > recursive but pretty weird. Furthermore, having active options preceded
> > by one "#" and comments by two "##" in the automagic kernel section is
> > smart but just as weird.
> 
> I also found Debian's GRUB legacy "menu.lst" to be very verbose but I 
> liked that way. I also found additional options that were not present in 
> another distributions which it finally turned out to be very helpful.
> 
> >>> It'll come if it isn't already out. The grub1/grub2 developers are
> >>> probably keeping grub1 around to ease the Lenny-Squeeze transition but
> >>> they're going to say at some point that they no longer want to
> >>> maintain grub1.
> >>
> >> It is still available for install, just the installer does not present
> >> the option.
> > 
> > If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in Debian
> > would be to make it unavailable from d-i...
> 
> Ha, how nice! >:-)
> 
> But the package is still available and thus, it can be installed and 
> thus, it has to be maintained (at least until wheezy becomes unsupported).
> 
> Greetings,

For GRUB 1 I only edited menu.lst and for GRUB 2 I only edit grub.cfg.
All that automation is useless for my needs. For example, how should the
automation know, for what of my kernels 'threadirqs' should be added and
when not to add it? Super cow powers?
It takes seconds to edit menu.lst or grub.cfg and to make a backup of
those files. Unfortunately I found no way to stop the auto-generating
forever, since an upgrade could bring back this grub update thingy.

 (__) 
 (oo) 
   /--\/ 
  / |||

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Lisi  wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 June 2011 19:50:59 Tom H wrote:


>>> If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in
>>> Debian would be to make it unavailable from d-i...

I definitely said the above. I didn't realize that this was what
Camaleon was referring to; sorry.


> LILO is being maintained again, so those of us who don't yet want to use GRUB
> 2 and are being firmly told that it is almost immoral to want easy access to
> GRUB 1 since it is not being maintained, will obviously have to use LILO. ;-)
>
> And yes, I would exepct to be able to get access to all three if the expert
> install is chosen.  Except...  Except that volunteers will do what they are
> happy to do.  And if you don't like what they do, you just have to do it for
> yourself or pay someone else to do it for you.
>
> So the argument that those who write the installer have a right to decide what
> they put in it is incontrovertible.  But the argument that newbies might have
> trouble with something is a poor excuse for not putting something in the
> expert install.

I don't think that anyone in this thread suggested that using grub1
and insisting on using grub1 is "almost immoral" but it's an
entertaining viewpoint! :)

Instead of looking at this from the perspective of a user who doesn't
want to change bootloaders and wants to have all possible options
available at install time and later, look at this from the perspective
of Debian as a project. Do you really want the grub maintainers to
split their time and energy between maintaining a bootloader that's
being actively developed and its previous iteration, which has been
EOL'd by upstream? Even though I prefer grub1's setup and consider it
more than good enough for my purposes, I'm glad that it's been dropped
from d-i (I doubt that the d-i developers took this decision without
consulting others, including the grub maintainers) and I look forward
to the time that grub1's removed from the repositories because that'll
show that the resources of Debian as a project are being well managed.

I don't use Debian on the desktop so I don't keep track of the
evolution of DEs, but there must've been a decision at some point to
drop KDE 3 and there'll be a decision at some point to drop GNOME 2.
It's normal to upgrade a distribution's components and follow in the
footsteps of upstream as long as stability isn't compromised (and it
isn't in grub2's case).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/banlktindmnyktwuw_ztmbimbu83s4an...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Lisi]

On Wednesday 29 June 2011 19:50:59 Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Lisi  wrote:
> > On Wednesday 29 June 2011 15:55:58 Camaleón wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:02:53 +0100, Lisi wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 28 June 2011 19:40:15 Camaleón wrote:
> >> >> > If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in
> >> >> > Debian would be to make it unavailable from d-i...
> >> >
> >> > So we'll all have to switch to Lilo, which is still maintained.  (Or
> >> > should I say again??)
> >>
> >> Care when quoting... that was not me ;-)
> >
> > Sorry, Camaleón, it indeed wasn't.  It was Tom H.  I apologise.  You
> > appear to me to be arguing on the same side as I am.
>
> I never mentioned LILO so it wasn't me either.

No, _I_ mentioned LILO.  You said:

> >> >> > If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in
> >> >> > Debian would be to make it unavailable from d-i...
> >> >

And it was you who said it - it took me a while to thread back thro' the 
slightly complex trimming. 

LILO is being maintained again, so those of us who don't yet want to use GRUB 
2 and are being firmly told that it is almost immoral to want easy access to 
GRUB 1 since it is not being maintained, will obviously have to use LILO. ;-)

And yes, I would exepct to be able to get access to all three if the expert 
install is chosen.  Except...  Except that volunteers will do what they are 
happy to do.  And if you don't like what they do, you just have to do it for 
yourself or pay someone else to do it for you.

So the argument that those who write the installer have a right to decide what 
they put in it is incontrovertible.  But the argument that newbies might have 
trouble with something is a poor excuse for not putting something in the 
expert install.

Lisi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201106292221.43746.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Lisi  wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 June 2011 15:55:58 Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:02:53 +0100, Lisi wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 28 June 2011 19:40:15 Camaleón wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in
>> >> > Debian would be to make it unavailable from d-i...
>> >
>> > So we'll all have to switch to Lilo, which is still maintained.  (Or
>> > should I say again??)
>>
>> Care when quoting... that was not me ;-)
>
> Sorry, Camaleón, it indeed wasn't.  It was Tom H.  I apologise.  You appear to
> me to be arguing on the same side as I am.

I never mentioned LILO so it wasn't me either.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTiˆPyKOBkDOe2Ú5=xmtptej...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Lisi]

On Wednesday 29 June 2011 15:55:58 Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:02:53 +0100, Lisi wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 June 2011 19:40:15 Camaleón wrote:
> >> > If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in
> >> > Debian would be to make it unavailable from d-i...
> >
> > So we'll all have to switch to Lilo, which is still maintained.  (Or
> > should I say again??)
>
> Care when quoting... that was not me ;-)
>
> Greetings,
>
> --
> Camaleón

Sorry, Camaleón, it indeed wasn't.  It was Tom H.  I apologise.  You appear to 
me to be arguing on the same side as I am.

I _like_ tried and tested.  I _like_ stable.  I upgrade my workhorse when 
there is a good reason, and am rarely an early adopter.  Let other people 
iron the bugs out.  Where I want to follow something new (e.g. Trinity) I do 
it on a non-production machine.

GRUB 2 strikes me as great, except when it causes problems.  Too many people 
report unbootable systems with GRUB 2, and it seems to be difficult to edit.  
I would prefer to wait a little longer for it to settle down.

I dislike change for change's sake.  We have an ad running currently in this 
country that makes me want to throw something at the television every time I 
see it. :-(  

This woman is bullyied/manoeuvered/tricked into getting a new Windows computer 
which she needs, not because her old one has gracefully (or even less 
gracefully) died, not because she is about to shoot and edit a complex bit of 
cinematography and her computer isn't man [or woman, of course ;-)] enough, 
not because there is any problem at all, but because her computer is 8 years 
old.  There is nothing wrong with it.  It is 8 years old. So she needs a new 
computer.  Ouch :-(

My computer is seven years old.  It appears a little memory challenged at the 
moment.  I shall run memtest before I even think of upgrading the memory, 
since one of the sticks might be faulty.  I have had a cursory look at 
motherboards and motherboard bundles - but only briefly.

Lisi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201106291630.16699.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:02:53 +0100, Lisi wrote:

> On Tuesday 28 June 2011 19:40:15 Camaleón wrote:
>> > If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in
>> > Debian would be to make it unavailable from d-i...
> 
> So we'll all have to switch to Lilo, which is still maintained.  (Or
> should I say again??)

Care when quoting... that was not me ;-)

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.29.14.55...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:00:00 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Ma, 28 iun 11, 18:40:15, Camaleón wrote:
>> 
>> But the package is still available and thus, it can be installed and
>> thus, it has to be maintained (at least until wheezy becomes
>> unsupported).
> 
> "*has* to be maintained" or did you rather mean "should"?
> 
> 
> ,[ http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution ] |
> | 2.1. General rules
> |
> | 1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do
> | work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which |
> has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it. [...]
> `

I can re-phrase it but I'm afraid the result won't be of your liking >:-)

"It has to be maintained until it gets oficially dropped" which is 
something I'm still not seeing to happen unless you point me to any 
statement on the matter which I'll be glad to read.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.29.14.29...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:32:31 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Camaleón  wrote:
>>>
>>> If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in
>>> Debian would be to make it unavailable from d-i...
>>
>> Ha, how nice! >:-)
>>
>> But the package is still available and thus, it can be installed and
>> thus, it has to be maintained (at least until wheezy becomes
>> unsupported).
> 
> Some advice: like a political candidate coming to an election with a
> double-digit deficit in the polls has to get used to the idea of losing,
> you should get into the frame of mind that by the time Wheezy's
> released, grub1'll have been removed from the Debian repositories.

That would be a great loss :-(. In any case, I would like to see an 
oficial announcement somewhere.

> Regarding the rest of your email (that I've snipped out), I think that
> you're being very difficult regarding the configuration of grub2... :)

I can live with Grub2 or LILO or whatever bootloader (even NTLDR). What I 
hate is seeing users losing options.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.29.14.23...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:30:17 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 18:40:15 +, Camaleón wrote:
> 
>> But the package is still available and thus, it can be installed and
>> thus, it has to be maintained (at least until wheezy becomes
>> unsupported).
> 
> Maintained? Like chimera2.

Like the vast majority of software, that it may become mature for today 
standards but still useful for the users.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.29.14.15...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:52:03 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 13:42:51 +, Camaleón wrote:
> 
>> How that can be?
>> 
>> GRUB legacy package is still available in Debian repos, is just the
>> installer that does not present the option to get it by default. And
>> being the expert installer, having both options would be more than
>> reasonable, IMO.
> 
> Reasonable? So you say to the user (who might be new to Debian) - here's
> a bit of decaying software. 

Oh, I love that biased double-moral >:-)

Let's see, are you calling "decaying software" to GRUB legacy? Okay, I'll 
take that. And do you think GNOME 2 falls also in such definition? You 
know, GNOME 3 is out and the old version is not going to be improved nor 
enhanced, right? GNOME devels are now focusing into the new baby. So 
should we still remove from the installer anything that smells "decaying"?

I don't think so. IMO, there has to be a smooth transtition. 

Squeeze offered both options, why don't keep it the same one release more 
to give users the time to get used it? Once GRUB legacy is going to be 
completely out (from upstream) it can be even removed from Debian 
repositories as happens with any unmaintained piece of software.

> It boots your machine. Or might not. Either way, we aren't going to put
> much effort into supporting it because nobody is really interested in
> maintaining it.

It is maintained, it's in the repos. So removing GRUB legacy from the 
installer is just a personal POV|lack of resources option. The latter is 
understandable but still a pity :-(

> And that is on a critical piece of infrastructure - the installer!

Yes, and for that same reason is very important to test the installer 
under several bootloaders. People using preseed will be able to get GRUB 
legacy and they shouldn't face any problem.

And don't forget Debian stable is the election for many users because it 
keeps older versions of the programs. Old, yes, but stable as a rock and 
well tested software.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.29.13.56...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 29/06/11 04:18, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 13:22:56 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> 
>> The variables that can be set in "/etc/default/grub" are exported in
>> "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig" ("/etc/default/grub" is sourced by
>> "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig").
>>
>> Why they aren't listed in "/etc/default/grub" is anyone's guess.
> 
> Why guess?
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=612538
> 
> 

to see which variables are set:-
$ grep "export GRUB_DEVICE" -A42 /usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig
to create new ones just add them to grub-mkconfig

refs:info grub
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2011/06/msg02253.html

Cheers

-- 
"I just have one of those faces.
People come up to me and say, "What's wrong?"
Nothing.
"Well, it takes more energy to frown than it does to smile."
Yeah, you know it takes more energy to point that out than it does to
leave me alone?"
~ Bill Hicks


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e0ad013.3070...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 21:55:50 +0100, Lisi wrote:

> As I understand it, the argument is that Grub legacy should be available as 
> part of the "expert" install process.

Yes, that's the proposition. But "expert" doesn't mean expert and
foisting some end-of-line, unsupported software on me for booting my
computer is not a responsible action.

And just to take the argument into uncharted territory (not very
seriously, I admit) but why can't apt-get and aptitude be offered as
alternatives on the installer? "Expert" install only, of course!

 A newbie would be better advised to 
> stick to standard until sure of her/his ground.

You only install once. What do you have to be sure of?

> Most people will simply go for the defaults.

'Most people' don't fit the 'most people' category.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110628213635.GX19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Lisi]

On Tuesday 28 June 2011 19:40:15 Camaleón wrote:
> > If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in Debian
> > would be to make it unavailable from d-i...

So we'll all have to switch to Lilo, which is still maintained.  (Or should I 
say again??)

Lisi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201106282202.53777.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Lisi]

On Tuesday 28 June 2011 19:52:03 Brian wrote:
> Reasonable? So you say to the user (who might be new to Debian) - here's
> a bit of decaying software. It boots your machine. Or might not. Either
> way, we aren't going to put much effort into supporting it because
> nobody is really interested in maintaining it.

As I understand it, the argument is that Grub legacy should be available as 
part of the "expert" install process.  A newbie would be better advised to 
stick to standard until sure of her/his ground.

Most people will simply go for the defaults.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201106282155.50572.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 28 iun 11, 18:40:15, Camaleón wrote:
> 
> But the package is still available and thus, it can be installed and 
> thus, it has to be maintained (at least until wheezy becomes unsupported).

"*has* to be maintained" or did you rather mean "should"?


,[ http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution ]
|
| 2.1. General rules
|
| 1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do 
| work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which
| has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it. [...]
`

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 18:40:15 +, Camaleón wrote:

> But the package is still available and thus, it can be installed and 
> thus, it has to be maintained (at least until wheezy becomes unsupported).

Maintained? Like chimera2.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110628193017.GW19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Brian  wrote:
> On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 13:19:15 -0400, Tom H wrote:


>> I'd include the majority of Debian users too in my statement.
>
> The majority of Debian users just want to boot their machine. They are
> thankful it doesn't collapse on them. Most of the time. Maybe. Who
> knows?

Exactly.


>> Changing the files in "/etc/grub.d/" (1) changes the order of your
>> grub menu entries (for example, by renumbering the files), (2) changes
>> the text displayed in those entries (by editing the naming parts of
>> the scripts; for example getting rid of the superfluous "GNU/Linux"in
>> the menu entries), (3) adds custom menu entries (like the guy who
>> added runlevels 3-5 earlier in this thread).
>
> "GNU/Linux" might be unwanted but it is not 'superfluous'. Unless it's
> not Debian we are on.

In *my* grub menu*s*, it's *completely* superfluous.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=d+nox20n9vrvp_qgsktcb45g...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Camaleón  wrote:
>>
>> If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in Debian
>> would be to make it unavailable from d-i...
>
> Ha, how nice! >:-)
>
> But the package is still available and thus, it can be installed and
> thus, it has to be maintained (at least until wheezy becomes unsupported).

Some advice: like a political candidate coming to an election with a
double-digit deficit in the polls has to get used to the idea of
losing, you should get into the frame of mind that by the time
Wheezy's released, grub1'll have been removed from the Debian
repositories.

Regarding the rest of your email (that I've snipped out), I think that
you're being very difficult regarding the configuration of grub2... :)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/banlktik4e76+mfqr3y2tw+ymeyuzpcd...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 13:19:15 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> I'd include the majority of Debian users too in my statement.

The majority of Debian users just want to boot their machine. They are
thankful it doesn't collapse on them. Most of the time. Maybe. Who
knows?

> Changing the files in "/etc/grub.d/" (1) changes the order of your
> grub menu entries (for example, by renumbering the files), (2) changes
> the text displayed in those entries (by editing the naming parts of
> the scripts; for example getting rid of the superfluous "GNU/Linux"in
> the menu entries), (3) adds custom menu entries (like the guy who
> added runlevels 3-5 earlier in this thread).

"GNU/Linux" might be unwanted but it is not 'superfluous'. Unless it's
not Debian we are on.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110628191228.GV19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Brian  wrote:
> On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 13:22:56 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>
>> The variables that can be set in "/etc/default/grub" are exported in
>> "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig" ("/etc/default/grub" is sourced by
>> "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig").
>>
>> Why they aren't listed in "/etc/default/grub" is anyone's guess.
>
> Why guess?
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=612538

Thanks. I'd forgotten that grub used the silly info thing... I thought
that it was all undocumented, save the few comments in
"/etc/default/grub".


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/banlktikwfdyw6sy1qw-pgn+nprfpcbb...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 13:42:51 +, Camaleón wrote:

> How that can be? 
> 
> GRUB legacy package is still available in Debian repos, is just the 
> installer that does not present the option to get it by default. And 
> being the expert installer, having both options would be more than 
> reasonable, IMO.

Reasonable? So you say to the user (who might be new to Debian) - here's
a bit of decaying software. It boots your machine. Or might not. Either
way, we aren't going to put much effort into supporting it because
nobody is really interested in maintaining it.

And that is on a critical piece of infrastructure - the installer!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110628185203.GU19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:19:15 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Camaleón  wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:27:18 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Camaleón  wrote:
> 
> 
> For grub2, there's also just one file to tweak, "/etc/default/grub",
> and the CLI tools are more powerful.

 Are your sure?
>>>
>>> Yes, for the great majority of users.
>>
>> Ah, that's explains all. But I'd say a great percentage of Debian users
>> do not search for what majority of users seek.
> 
> I'd include the majority of Debian users too in my statement.

That looks to be a bit optimistic :-)
 
> Changing the files in "/etc/grub.d/" 

Hey, hey... we were talking about what can be done by editing "one" file, 
that is, "/etc/default/grub". Of course, if we start by editing all the 
stuff at /etc/grub.d/* we can make whatever we want but that was not my 
point nor my complain ;-)

> (1) changes the order of your grub menu entries (for example, by
> renumbering the files), (2) changes the text displayed in those entries
> (by editing the naming parts of the scripts; for example getting rid of
> the superfluous "GNU/Linux"in the menu entries), (3) adds custom menu
> entries (like the guy who added runlevels 3-5 earlier in this thread).

And I will add that all of the above is not what all common users do.
 
> "/etc/default/grub" controls the options of the "linux" line, the
> default entry, the menu timeout, the screen resolution, the creation of
> "recovery" or "os-prober" entries, and the fonts and graphics (if you
> have/want them).

I, personally, only use to change the kernel line stanza and set some 
default options to prevail after updates (in GRUB's legacy parlance, that 
was "kopt=" value).

>>> You can edit the files in "/etc/grub.d/" - or rename them or add to
>>> them - but the canonical way of changing grub settings is through
>>> "/etc/default/grub".
>>
>> Yep, but not all the available options are available from there, or so
>> says the docs.
> 
> Which options?

I mean, for instance, "GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER". It is not documented in 
the same file, but there are others. For those, you have to run "info -f 
grub -n 'Simple configuration'" to have access to all of the tweakable 
variables.

>>> I used to edit 10_linux, 30_os-prober, and "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig"
>>> in order to customize grub2 to my liking but I've given up.
>>
>> You see? There will be ocassions where the user have to jump from
>> "/etc/ default/grub" to /etc/grub.d and find out what file in there to
>> modify. With GRUB legacy there were only 1 or 2 files, less error
>> prone, IMO.
> 
> See above regarding the use of "/etc/grub.d/".

Yes, but that involves more than one file.
 
> Again, for the majority of users, in grub1 you edit
> "/boot/grub/menu.lst" and in grub2 you edit "/etc/default/grub". 

Mmm... for editing the kernel line you will have to jump to /etc/grub.d/* 
and is one of the most performed actions...

> The latter's more logical from a design perspective. When I first used
> Debian, I thought "what's all this rubbish in "menu.lst"? Having the
> options governing a section of a file included in that file is nicely
> recursive but pretty weird. Furthermore, having active options preceded
> by one "#" and comments by two "##" in the automagic kernel section is
> smart but just as weird.

I also found Debian's GRUB legacy "menu.lst" to be very verbose but I 
liked that way. I also found additional options that were not present in 
another distributions which it finally turned out to be very helpful.

>>> It'll come if it isn't already out. The grub1/grub2 developers are
>>> probably keeping grub1 around to ease the Lenny-Squeeze transition but
>>> they're going to say at some point that they no longer want to
>>> maintain grub1.
>>
>> It is still available for install, just the installer does not present
>> the option.
> 
> If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in Debian
> would be to make it unavailable from d-i...

Ha, how nice! >:-)

But the package is still available and thus, it can be installed and 
thus, it has to be maintained (at least until wheezy becomes unsupported).

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.28.18.40...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 13:22:56 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> The variables that can be set in "/etc/default/grub" are exported in
> "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig" ("/etc/default/grub" is sourced by
> "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig").
> 
> Why they aren't listed in "/etc/default/grub" is anyone's guess.

Why guess?

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=612538


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110628181825.GT19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Andrei POPESCU
 wrote:
> On Du, 26 iun 11, 08:39:03, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>> I'm afraid that in the learning process I'm going to damn GRUB 2 one or
>> two times while I remember to run "update-grub" after editing "/etc/
>> default/grub" :-)
>
> update-grub was necessary with grub1 as well, unless you edited the
> stanzas directly, and loose all changes on next kernel upgrade. No big
> change here.

One note: grub1's "update-grub" is a Debianism.

I'm not sure that grub2's "update-grub" (it's a single line script
that runs "grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg") is provided by grub2
upstream because Fedora's grub2 didn't have it when I last tried grub2
on Fedora (although there's a possibility that it's removed from the
Fedora package for some reason).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/banlktim3zyya6d4bgtzh7dfm4xzrb9g...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:52:31 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Ma, 28 iun 11, 13:42:51, Camaleón wrote:
>> 
>> GRUB legacy package is still available in Debian repos, is just the
>> installer that does not present the option to get it by default. And
>> being the expert installer, having both options would be more than
>> reasonable, IMO.
> 
> The transition from grub1 to grub2 is over, I don't see a reason to
> offer grub1 as an option in the installer (which means additional code
> that needs to be maintained), 

You mean that using preseeding and choosing GRUB legacy won't be a 
supported scenario anymore?

***
http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/apbs04.html#preseed-bootloader

B.4.11. Boot loader installation

(...)

# With a few exceptions for unusual partitioning setups, GRUB 2 is now the
# default. If you need GRUB Legacy for some particular reason, then
# uncomment this:
#d-i grub-installer/grub2_instead_of_grub_legacy boolean false
***

> unless you want to argue about also having lilo, extlinux, syslinux, ...

Good point... but LILO is still there (while its percentage of use is 
closest to GRUB's legacy) and extlinux, well... if we attend to the 
popcon stats, GRUB legacy is more installed that extlinux so if there is 
room for an additional installer, that should be GRUB legacy:

***
By % of installations (descending↓):

GRUB 2: 53.74%
LILO: 2.07%
GRUB legacy: 0.91%
Extlinux: 0.35%
***

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.28.17.33...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Camaleón  wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:31:20 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Camaleón  wrote:
>>>
>>> But there are not many variables that can be set at "/etc/default/grub"
>>> so why not listing all of them and briefly comment them in the same
>>> file?
>>
>> +1
>
> For GRUB's 2 newcomers (like me) that would make the transition smoother
> because of the similarities with the old "menu.lst" which, OTOH, was also
> very well documented on file.

The variables that can be set in "/etc/default/grub" are exported in
"/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig" ("/etc/default/grub" is sourced by
"/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig").

Why they aren't listed in "/etc/default/grub" is anyone's guess.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/banlktikccvmkn2mqs9we_l4zx1hw9ju...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Camaleón  wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:27:18 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Camaleón  wrote:


 For grub2, there's also just one file to tweak, "/etc/default/grub",
 and the CLI tools are more powerful.
>>>
>>> Are your sure?
>>
>> Yes, for the great majority of users.
>
> Ah, that's explains all. But I'd say a great percentage of Debian users
> do not search for what majority of users seek.

I'd include the majority of Debian users too in my statement.

Changing the files in "/etc/grub.d/" (1) changes the order of your
grub menu entries (for example, by renumbering the files), (2) changes
the text displayed in those entries (by editing the naming parts of
the scripts; for example getting rid of the superfluous "GNU/Linux"in
the menu entries), (3) adds custom menu entries (like the guy who
added runlevels 3-5 earlier in this thread).

"/etc/default/grub" controls the options of the "linux" line, the
default entry, the menu timeout, the screen resolution, the creation
of "recovery" or "os-prober" entries, and the fonts and graphics (if
you have/want them).


>>> test@debian:~$ ls -l /etc/grub*
>>> test@debian:~$ ls -l /boot/grub/
>>
>> You can edit the files in "/etc/grub.d/" - or rename them or add to them
>> - but the canonical way of changing grub settings is through
>> "/etc/default/grub".
>
> Yep, but not all the available options are available from there, or so
> says the docs.

Which options?


>> I used to edit 10_linux, 30_os-prober, and "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig" in
>> order to customize grub2 to my liking but I've given up.
>
> You see? There will be ocassions where the user have to jump from "/etc/
> default/grub" to /etc/grub.d and find out what file in there to modify.
> With GRUB legacy there were only 1 or 2 files, less error prone, IMO.

See above regarding the use of "/etc/grub.d/".

Again, for the majority of users, in grub1 you edit
"/boot/grub/menu.lst" and in grub2 you edit "/etc/default/grub". The
latter's more logical from a design perspective. When I first used
Debian, I thought "what's all this rubbish in "menu.lst"? Having the
options governing a section of a file included in that file is nicely
recursive but pretty weird. Furthermore, having active options
preceded by one "#" and comments by two "##" in the automagic kernel
section is smart but just as weird.


 If I were a betting man, I'd bet that grub1 won't be available in
 Wheezy once it's published...
>>>
>>> And that was what I asked for, but I'm still waiting to see an official
>>> statement for whatever decision they take. I can deal with either, but
>>> I would like to be prepared for the worst ;-)
>>
>> It'll come if it isn't already out. The grub1/grub2 developers are
>> probably keeping grub1 around to ease the Lenny-Squeeze transition but
>> they're going to say at some point that they no longer want to maintain
>> grub1.
>
> It is still available for install, just the installer does not present
> the option.

If I were the grub maintainer, my first step in dropping grub1 in
Debian would be to make it unavailable from d-i...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTimjvn_0kS=1gz1syqrt7ak6efa...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 28 iun 11, 13:42:51, Camaleón wrote:
> 
> GRUB legacy package is still available in Debian repos, is just the 
> installer that does not present the option to get it by default. And 
> being the expert installer, having both options would be more than 
> reasonable, IMO.

The transition from grub1 to grub2 is over, I don't see a reason to 
offer grub1 as an option in the installer (which means additional code 
that needs to be maintained), unless you want to argue about also having 
lilo, extlinux, syslinux, ...

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:03:30 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Lu, 27 iun 11, 11:01:30, Camaleón wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry if I sound a bit apocalyptic, but removing something just for the
>> sake of removing is not a good way to encourage your users to make the
>> change.
> 
> I have to disagree with you. grub1 is not being removed "just for the
> sake of removing", but because there is not enough manpower to maintain
> it (upstream and/or in Debian). Of course, you are welcome to step-up
> and take over the maintenance ;)

How that can be? 

GRUB legacy package is still available in Debian repos, is just the 
installer that does not present the option to get it by default. And 
being the expert installer, having both options would be more than 
reasonable, IMO.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.28.13.42...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Lu, 27 iun 11, 11:01:30, Camaleón wrote:
> 
> Sorry if I sound a bit apocalyptic, but removing something just for the 
> sake of removing is not a good way to encourage your users to make the 
> change.

I have to disagree with you. grub1 is not being removed "just for the 
sake of removing", but because there is not enough manpower to maintain 
it (upstream and/or in Debian). Of course, you are welcome to step-up 
and take over the maintenance ;)

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Du, 26 iun 11, 08:39:03, Camaleón wrote:
> 
> I'm afraid that in the learning process I'm going to damn GRUB 2 one or 
> two times while I remember to run "update-grub" after editing "/etc/
> default/grub" :-)

update-grub was necessary with grub1 as well, unless you edited the 
stanzas directly, and loose all changes on next kernel upgrade. No big 
change here.

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:31:20 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Camaleón  wrote:
>>
>> But there are not many variables that can be set at "/etc/default/grub"
>> so why not listing all of them and briefly comment them in the same
>> file?
> 
> +1

For GRUB's 2 newcomers (like me) that would make the transition smoother 
because of the similarities with the old "menu.lst" which, OTOH, was also 
very well documented on file.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.27.11.04...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:30:26 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Camaleón  wrote:
>>
>> The less files for a bootloader, the better. Not a scientific
>> statement, of course, just a wild-guess.
> 
> One of the grub developers' sales-pitches for grub2 is that it's modular
> and you can use insmod (a grub insmod not the standard one) to load the
> modules that you need to boot...

Of course, all looks good until something fails. And you know, developers 
worry about the best way to manage the code (and here we know modular is 
better) but not for what's the best for users to deal with it ;-)

Sorry if I sound a bit apocalyptic, but removing something just for the 
sake of removing is not a good way to encourage your users to make the 
change.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.27.11.01...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 27/06/11 17:59, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 24 iun 11, 15:11:13, Freeman wrote:
>>
>> My menu.lst of Grub 0.97 included numerous different rc levels to select
>> from.  Just a way of selecting between different interfaces while booting.
>>
>> So the following blocks in the automagic section of menu.lst resulted in a 4
>> item menu for each kernel, one item booting into GDM, the next starting
>> xinit with Openbox--booting from rc5.d, rc4.d rc3.d and rc2.d respectively.
>>   
>>  ## altoption boot targets option
>>  ## multiple altoptions lines are allowed
>>  ## e.g. altoptions=(extra menu suffix) extra boot options
>>  ##  altoptions=(single-user) single
>>  # altoptions=(GDM) 5 vga=791 quiet
>>  # altoptions=(Openbox) 4 vga=791 quiet 
>>  # altoptions=(Screen) 3 vga=791
>>  # altoptions=(single-user mode) single
> 
> That's a neat feature of grub1 that was not replicated (yet?) in grub2. 
> Any shell script gurus here who might be interested in writing a patch? 
> :)
> 
> Regards,
> Andrei

I was in a hurry - this is the wrong way to do this, but it works, and
it should be relatively simple to implement this the correct way.

I just copied /etc/grub.d/10_linux to /etc/grub.d/11_linux, modified
11_linux and ran upgrade-grub(2).  Seems to work OK, but it's a nasty hack.
My preference would be to create new custom variables in:-
/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig and then call and populate them in:-
/etc/default/grub after modifying 10_linux to use them (sic).

NOTE 1: use chmod -x to stop files in /etc/grub.d from being acted on by
update-grub *regardless* or name or extension.
NOTE 2: I *like* grub2! /etc/default/grub is simple by design, you can
make it as complex as you like.

/etc/default/grub==
# If you change this file, run 'update-grub' afterwards to update
# /boot/grub/grub.cfg.

GRUB_DEFAULT=0
GRUB_TIMEOUT=5
GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR=`lsb_release -i -s 2> /dev/null || echo Debian`
GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet"
GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="nouveau.modeset=0"

# Uncomment to enable BadRAM filtering, modify to suit your needs
# This works with Linux (no patch required) and with any kernel that obtains
# the memory map information from GRUB (GNU Mach, kernel of FreeBSD ...)
#GRUB_BADRAM="0x01234567,0xfefefefe,0x89abcdef,0xefefefef"

# Uncomment to disable graphical terminal (grub-pc only)
# NOTE: this will remove the splash screen
#GRUB_TERMINAL=console

# The resolution used on graphical terminal
# note that you can use only modes which your graphic card supports via VBE
# you can see them in real GRUB with the command `vbeinfo'
#GRUB_GFXMODE=640x480

# Uncomment if you don't want GRUB to pass "root=UUID=xxx" parameter to
Linux
#GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID=true

# Uncomment to disable generation of recovery mode menu entries
#GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_RECOVERY="true"

# Uncomment to get an annoying beep at grub start
#GRUB_INIT_TUNE="480 440 1"

# Uncomment to get an annoying tune at grub start
#GRUN_INIT="480 900 2 1000 2 800 2 400 2 600 3"
# for more of the same see info "grub --index-search play"

# Run grep "export GRUB_DEVICE" -A42 /usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig
# to see all the built-in grub variables
**




/etc/grub.d/11_linux===
#! /bin/sh
set -e

# grub-mkconfig helper script.
# Copyright (C) 2006,2007,2008,2009,2010  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
#
# GRUB is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
# the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
#
# GRUB is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
# GNU General Public License for more details.
#
# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
# along with GRUB.  If not, see .

prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=${prefix}
bindir=${exec_prefix}/bin
libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib
. ${libdir}/grub/grub-mkconfig_lib

export TEXTDOMAIN=grub
export TEXTDOMAINDIR=${prefix}/share/locale

CLASS="--class gnu-linux --class gnu --class os"

if [ "x${GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR}" = "x" ] ; then
  OS=GNU/Linux
else
  OS="${GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR} GNU/Linux"
  CLASS="--class $(echo ${GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR} | tr '[A-Z]' '[a-z]' | cut
-d' ' -f1) ${CLASS}"
fi

# loop-AES arranges things so that /dev/loop/X can be our root device, but
# the initrds that Linux uses don't like that.
case ${GRUB_DEVICE} in
  /dev/loop/*|/dev/loop[0-9])
GRUB_DEVICE=`losetup ${GRUB_DEVICE} | sed -e
"s/^[^(]*(\([^)]\+\)).*/\1/"`
  ;;
esac

if [ "x${GRUB_DEVICE_UUID}" = "x" ] || [ "x${GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID}" =
"xtrue" ] \
|| ! test -e "/dev/disk/by-uuid/${GRUB_DEVICE_UUID}" \
|| uses_abstraction "${GRUB_DEVICE}" lvm; then
  LINUX_ROOT_DEVICE=${GRUB_DE

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:27:18 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Camaleón  wrote:

(...)

>>> For grub2, there's also just one file to tweak, "/etc/default/grub",
>>> and the CLI tools are more powerful.
>>
>> Are your sure?
> 
> Yes, for the great majority of users.

Ah, that's explains all. But I'd say a great percentage of Debian users 
do not search for what majority of users seek.

>> test@debian:~$ ls -l /etc/grub*
>> test@debian:~$ ls -l /boot/grub/
> 
> You can edit the files in "/etc/grub.d/" - or rename them or add to them
> - but the canonical way of changing grub settings is through
> "/etc/default/grub".

Yep, but not all the available options are available from there, or so 
says the docs.
 
> I used to edit 10_linux, 30_os-prober, and "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig" in
> order to customize grub2 to my liking but I've given up.

You see? There will be ocassions where the user have to jump from "/etc/
default/grub" to /etc/grub.d and find out what file in there to modify. 
With GRUB legacy there were only 1 or 2 files, less error prone, IMO. 
 
> And forget about the files in "/boot/grub/". "grub.cfg" is the only one
> that you might want to edit (if you do, I'd keep edit a copy stored
> elsewhere and copy it to "/boot/grub/" after editing it) but it's not
> worth the trouble. You're better off using "/etc/boot/40_custom" or
> "/etc/boot/09_cameleon" if you need/want custom entries.

I still have to carefully read the GRUB 2 manual from GRUB's site. GRUB 
is a piece of code that uses to be very customized by distributions but 
in the end, upstream commands.

>> So let's say I want to disallow GRUB2 from including my Windows
>> partition at the menu... should I tweak /etc/default/grub or should I
>> dive into /etc/grub.d/os-prober, or...?
> 
> That's one disappointment that I have with grub2. You can disable
> os-prober in "/etc/grub/default" but you can't have it run on some
> partitions and not others (for example if you want to add another Linux
> install but not add a Windows install). I think that this is an edge
> case because most people who have Windows installed will want it in the
> grub menu. There's however one case that I'm surprised doesn't come up
> more often: WinVista and Win7 have "recovery partitions" that are
> recognized and added to the grub menu and the only way to remove them
> (AFAIK) is to edit "/etc/grub.d/30_os-prober"...

That's the downside of automatisms, they work for all or for none. But  
maybe this feature of a selective os-prober can be added later :-?

>>> If I were a betting man, I'd bet that grub1 won't be available in
>>> Wheezy once it's published...
>>
>> And that was what I asked for, but I'm still waiting to see an official
>> statement for whatever decision they take. I can deal with either, but
>> I would like to be prepared for the worst ;-)
> 
> It'll come if it isn't already out. The grub1/grub2 developers are
> probably keeping grub1 around to ease the Lenny-Squeeze transition but
> they're going to say at some point that they no longer want to maintain
> grub1. 

It is still available for install, just the installer does not present 
the option.

> It's dead upstream and the recent patches have been to keep it
> up-to-date with Debian changes like the kernel's "zz*" scripts;
> *understandably!*.

Sigh... I can understand the decision of ditching GRUB legacy because of 
a practical POV (lack of resources, manpower, etc...) but it wouldn't 
surpise me to see it as the default option in other distributions.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.27.10.52...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Vi, 24 iun 11, 15:11:13, Freeman wrote:
> 
> My menu.lst of Grub 0.97 included numerous different rc levels to select
> from.  Just a way of selecting between different interfaces while booting.
> 
> So the following blocks in the automagic section of menu.lst resulted in a 4
> item menu for each kernel, one item booting into GDM, the next starting
> xinit with Openbox--booting from rc5.d, rc4.d rc3.d and rc2.d respectively.
>   
>  ## altoption boot targets option
>  ## multiple altoptions lines are allowed
>  ## e.g. altoptions=(extra menu suffix) extra boot options
>  ##  altoptions=(single-user) single
>  # altoptions=(GDM) 5 vga=791 quiet
>  # altoptions=(Openbox) 4 vga=791 quiet 
>  # altoptions=(Screen) 3 vga=791
>  # altoptions=(single-user mode) single

That's a neat feature of grub1 that was not replicated (yet?) in grub2. 
Any shell script gurus here who might be interested in writing a patch? 
:)

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Camaleón  wrote:
>
> But there are not many variables that can be set at "/etc/default/grub"
> so why not listing all of them and briefly comment them in the same file?

+1


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=-f9oucmrtas_o5os6pgnnz8b...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Camaleón  wrote:
>
> The less files for a bootloader, the better. Not a scientific statement,
> of course, just a wild-guess.

One of the grub developers' sales-pitches for grub2 is that it's
modular and you can use insmod (a grub insmod not the standard one) to
load the modules that you need to boot...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTikEyCeL2CuWrmm0LR=ak8krxn5...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Camaleón  wrote:
> El 25/06/11 19:01, Tom H escribió:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Camaleón  wrote:


>>> I also find GRUB legacy more suitable to my needs. I don't remember any
>>> problem with it, I mean, nothing that could not be solved by manually
>>> editing the "menu.lst" or by launching GRUB's legacy console from the
>>> menu. It had a small set of options and files to tweak (compared to GRUB
>>> 2) but I see that as a plus rather than a weakness because that makes it
>>> less vulnerable to flaws. Of course, I understand there are people with
>>> new needs that find GRUB 2 perfect for them, so having both options
>>> available in the installer is, IMO, a perfect deal :-)
>>
>> For grub2, there's also just one file to tweak, "/etc/default/grub",
>> and the CLI tools are more powerful.
>
> Are your sure?

Yes, for the great majority of users.

> test@debian:~$ ls -l /etc/grub*
> test@debian:~$ ls -l /boot/grub/

You can edit the files in "/etc/grub.d/" - or rename them or add to
them - but the canonical way of changing grub settings is through
"/etc/default/grub".

I used to edit 10_linux, 30_os-prober, and "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig"
in order to customize grub2 to my liking but I've given up.

And forget about the files in "/boot/grub/". "grub.cfg" is the only
one that you might want to edit (if you do, I'd keep edit a copy
stored elsewhere and copy it to "/boot/grub/" after editing it) but
it's not worth the trouble. You're better off using
"/etc/boot/40_custom" or "/etc/boot/09_cameleon" if you need/want
custom entries.


> So let's say I want to disallow GRUB2 from including my Windows partition at
> the menu... should I tweak /etc/default/grub or should I dive into
> /etc/grub.d/os-prober, or...?

That's one disappointment that I have with grub2. You can disable
os-prober in "/etc/grub/default" but you can't have it run on some
partitions and not others (for example if you want to add another
Linux install but not add a Windows install). I think that this is an
edge case because most people who have Windows installed will want it
in the grub menu. There's however one case that I'm surprised doesn't
come up more often: WinVista and Win7 have "recovery partitions" that
are recognized and added to the grub menu and the only way to remove
them (AFAIK) is to edit "/etc/grub.d/30_os-prober"...


>> If I were a betting man, I'd bet that grub1 won't be available in
>> Wheezy once it's published...
>
> And that was what I asked for, but I'm still waiting to see an official
> statement for whatever decision they take. I can deal with either, but I
> would like to be prepared for the worst ;-)

It'll come if it isn't already out. The grub1/grub2 developers are
probably keeping grub1 around to ease the Lenny-Squeeze transition but
they're going to say at some point that they no longer want to
maintain grub1. It's dead upstream and the recent patches have been to
keep it up-to-date with Debian changes like the kernel's "zz*"
scripts; *understandably!*.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=2yo8nvGPbxm6QmqiHocs=mhv...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 23:46:00 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 19:14:06 +, Camaleón wrote:

>> > With Linux you have complete control - so you can alter any file you
>> > wish. However, it is not usual (and maybe ill-advised) to change
>> > 00_header, 10_linux, 20_linux_xen or 30_os-prober. 40_custom is
>> > completely under your control (there is an example in this thread)
>> > and 05_debian_theme could be customised.
>> 
>> Sure, but that's no what I understand for "with GRUB2 there is only one
>> file to tweak", there are many and we (as admins) have to learn about
>> them ;-)
> 
> Tom H is fundamentally correct with his 'one file' view. There is quite
> a lot which can be done with /etc/default/grub if desired. Kernel
> options, a GRUB background and font, whether the menu is displayed or
> not and for how long it is displayed - etc.

For basic stuff, it could be. But we have to know there are additional 
files that can be also used to configure GRUB 2 and that's a slightly 
difference with GRUB legacy where basically we had only 2 main files:

- menu.lst for the common things, basically GRUB's menu options and OS 
entries

- device.map to tweak device detection order

And device.map had to be rarely modified, unless USB devices or non-fixed 
hard disks came into play.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that GRUB 2 is a bad thing per se, 
is just that people used to GRUB legacy will have to adapt to the new 
layout and learn again how to recover -in minutues- from a boot disaster.

I'm afraid that in the learning process I'm going to damn GRUB 2 one or 
two times while I remember to run "update-grub" after editing "/etc/
default/grub" :-)

> Anything more special and you move on to 40_custom. For example, booting
> from an iso file (those that are especially to provide the facility) can
> be done there. It also is useful if sub-menus are wanted. Neither is in
> GRUB Legacy, Of course, if these and other possibilities are of no use
> to a user they can work with /etc/default/grub or not, as they want.

I knew about that possibility (directly booting from an ISO image) in the 
time of GRUB legacy, but never tried.
 
> Files in /boot/grub are mainly binary. Nothing to do there. grub.cfg is
> an easy target though!
> 
> I do have a 05_debian_theme which differs a little from the one provided
> by Debian but I'd not go out of my way to change it drastically in other
> ways.

At least I can say one good thing of GRUB 2: it was the first time the 
installer could install GRUB on my system! ;-)

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.26.08.39...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[William Hopkins]

On 06/24/11 at 09:51pm, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 21:35:16 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> 
> > Having switched to grub2 recently, I do that as well.  But I suspect
> > most people will be content with the simpler configuration options
> > offered by editing /etc/default/grub and running update-grub.
> 
> That's me! Although I do have a little change made to debian_theme.
> 
> Why is it some people dislike GRUB2? My experience isn't great but it
> boots Debian kernels reliably on my machines. Nothing complicated I
> admit, and I'm not overfussed about configuring it to display fancy
> menus. What basic changes to grub.cfg cannot be made from the files in
> /etc?

Editing config files to have other config files edited by scripts is not ideal,
from a system administration POV. Troubleshooting is difficult, and it is the
sort of 'you don't need to know what happens in the box' logic I dislike. The
only other place where this sort of thing happens AFAIK is mail servers, and
those are notorious for being troublesome and difficult to manage!

/etc/default is for daemon parameters, and it is a good idea for that. I don't
wish to use it to manage my systems boot records also.

> 
> As an aside: Is having 'DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE' and making the file
> read-only really an invitation to do the opposite?

No. but the temptation just to understand a configuration file and modify it,
rather than guessing what equivalent the config-file-of-the-config-file will
do, is just too strong. And then we get bitten when the file is 'managed' for
us.

-- 
Liam


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Freeman]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 01:52:15PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 15:11:13 -0700, Freeman wrote:
> 
> > Grub2 didn't like my setup during upgrade. 
> > 
> > My menu.lst of Grub 0.97 included numerous different rc levels to select
> > from.  Just a way of selecting between different interfaces while booting.
> > 
> > So the following blocks in the automagic section of menu.lst resulted in a 4
> > item menu for each kernel, one item booting into GDM, the next starting 
> > xinit
> > with Openbox--booting from rc5.d, rc4.d rc3.d and rc2.d respectively.
> 
> [Snip menu.lst fragment]
>  
> > When grub2 setup hit that, it gave me some garbled menu item that failed,
> > followed by its basic boot items for console and maintenance.
> 
> The Release Notes for Squeeze offer advice on keeping GRUB Legacy and
> chainloading GRUB 2. There is also a mention of possibly having to
> adjust complex configurations to fit GRUB 2. You were in that category
> so were forewarned some extra work was in prospect. It would have been
> nice to have had a seamless conversion of menu.lst to grub.cfg but
> sometimes it cannot be done. 

I figured it was like that.

> 
> > So now I have an /etc/grub.d/09_custom that renders a menu above Grub2's
> > default menu.  I manually edit it for kernel upgrades with "find and
> > replace" of kernel numbers.  I don't like having a fractured, two part menu
> > that doesn't completely upgrade automagically.  But it works:
> 
> You do not have to have it.
> 
> You are using 09_custom for its intended purpose; previously you edited
> menu.lst. To boot with the latest kernel:
> 
> > linux   /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.37-1-amd64
> 
>   linux   /vmlinuz
> 
> > initrd  /boot/initrd.img-2.6.37-1-amd64
> 
>   initrd  /initrd.img
> 
> To tidy up the menu a non-executable 10_linux may be something to
> consider.
> 

But there are two kernels.  I have installed the backports kernel, so my
stable kernel is my backup kernel.  update-grub under Grub 0.97 would update
menu.lst with 4 run level menu items for each kernel during a kernel
upgrade.

I got close in 10_linux.  But when I last broke it, things didn't look like
I'd have a great menu.  So I figured I had better uses of time.

It is not a big issue to copy the old and new kernel version numbers to a
find and replace.  Actually, I'll put something in my functions file while I
am thinking of it.

. . .

Did it. Took about twice as long to think up and get working as the next 3-5
years of editing manually (45 minutes), but good practice for a novice and
fun.  Still miss the automagic options on run levels. :)

-- 
Regards,
Freeman

"Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux) is the
answer." --Somebody


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110625235856.GB23370@Deneb.office

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Freeman]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 01:19:39PM -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Freeman  wrote:
> 
> 
> > Grub2 didn't like my setup during upgrade.
> >
> > My menu.lst of Grub 0.97 included numerous different rc levels to select
> > from. Just a way of selecting between different interfaces while booting.
> >
> > So the following blocks in the automagic section of menu.lst resulted in a 4
> > item menu for each kernel, one item booting into GDM, the next starting
> > xinit with Openbox--booting from rc5.d, rc4.d rc3.d and rc2.d respectively.
> >
> > ## altoption boot targets option
> > ## multiple altoptions lines are allowed
> > ## e.g. altoptions=(extra menu suffix) extra boot options
> > ## altoptions=(single-user) single
> > # altoptions=(GDM) 5 vga=791 quiet
> > # altoptions=(Openbox) 4 vga=791 quiet
> > # altoptions=(Screen) 3 vga=791
> > # altoptions=(single-user mode) single
> >
> > When grub2 setup hit that, it gave me some garbled menu item that failed,
> > followed by its basic boot items for console and maintenance.
> >
> > So now I have an /etc/grub.d/09_custom that renders a menu above Grub2's
> > default menu. I manually edit it for kernel upgrades with "find and
> > replace" of kernel numbers. I don't like having a fractured, two part menu
> > that doesn't completely upgrade automagically. But it works:
> 
> This was a good Debianism that I wish the Debian maintainers had tried
> to have integrated into grub2 upstream. They'd just need to make, for
> example, "GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_ALTx" and "GRUB_TITLE_LINUX_ALTx",
> available in "/etc/default/grub", with the corresponding changes in
> "/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig" and "/etc/grub.d/10_linux" for them to be
> used.
> 

Didn't know it was Debianism. But it does seem good and as if it could be
saved.

> 
> >> As an aside: Is having 'DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE' and making the file
> >> read-only really an invitation to do the opposite?
> >
> > Without any other information, I'd have to edit the file to see what
> > happens. =:0
> 
> Same here! :)
> 

Debian is good for so many things.

-- 
Regards,
Freeman

"Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux) is the
answer." --Somebody


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110625234426.GA23370@Deneb.office

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 19:14:06 +, Camaleón wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:30:50 +0100, Brian wrote:
> 
> > On Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 19:34:27 +0200, Camaleón wrote:
> 
> (...)
> 
> > With Linux you have complete control - so you can alter any file you
> > wish. However, it is not usual (and maybe ill-advised) to change
> > 00_header, 10_linux, 20_linux_xen or 30_os-prober. 40_custom is
> > completely under your control (there is an example in this thread) and
> > 05_debian_theme could be customised.
> 
> Sure, but that's no what I understand for "with GRUB2 there is only one 
> file to tweak", there are many and we (as admins) have to learn about 
> them ;-)

Tom H is fundamentally correct with his 'one file' view. There is quite
a lot which can be done with /etc/default/grub if desired. Kernel
options, a GRUB background and font, whether the menu is displayed or
not and for how long it is displayed - etc.

Anything more special and you move on to 40_custom. For example, booting
from an iso file (those that are especially to provide the facility) can
be done there. It also is useful if sub-menus are wanted. Neither is in
GRUB Legacy, Of course, if these and other possibilities are of no use
to a user they can work with /etc/default/grub or not, as they want.

Files in /boot/grub are mainly binary. Nothing to do there. grub.cfg is
an easy target though!

I do have a 05_debian_theme which differs a little from the one provided
by Debian but I'd not go out of my way to change it drastically in other
ways.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110625224600.GP19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 19:49:48 +, Camaleón wrote:

> Ah, okay, it's on the same file. It instructs the user to run "info -f  
> grub -n 'Simple configuration'.
> 
> Good to know... and already done. 

They are also here:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub.html

> But there are not many variables that can be set at "/etc/default/grub" 
> so why not listing all of them and briefly comment them in the same file?

I cannot locate the exact reference just now but one of the Debian
developers (Colin Watson) does not believe /etc/default/grub is a good
place for documentation. Which is why there is the info source.

> Just tested and had to do nothing. After adding that entry, running 
> update-grub and rebooting the windows stanza is out from menu.
> 
> I wonder what would happen if no "update-grub" is run after that... it 
> keeps the last known state?

It does.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110625214824.GO19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:14:06 +, Camaleón wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:30:50 +0100, Brian wrote:

>>> So let's say I want to disallow GRUB2 from including my Windows
>>> partition at the menu... should I tweak /etc/default/grub or should I
>>> dive into /etc/grub.d/os-prober, or...?
>> 
>> GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER=true
>> 
>> in /etc/default/grub. It's documented. Alternatively be brutal and
>> uninstall os-prober.
> 
> Thanks much... but documented where? :-?

Ah, okay, it's on the same file. It instructs the user to run "info -f  
grub -n 'Simple configuration'.

Good to know... and already done. 

But there are not many variables that can be set at "/etc/default/grub" 
so why not listing all of them and briefly comment them in the same file?

> And after adding that stanza, should I edit anything else or just it
> will be autoremoved at next boot?

Just tested and had to do nothing. After adding that entry, running 
update-grub and rebooting the windows stanza is out from menu.

I wonder what would happen if no "update-grub" is run after that... it 
keeps the last known state?

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.25.19.49...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:30:50 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 19:34:27 +0200, Camaleón wrote:

(...)

> With Linux you have complete control - so you can alter any file you
> wish. However, it is not usual (and maybe ill-advised) to change
> 00_header, 10_linux, 20_linux_xen or 30_os-prober. 40_custom is
> completely under your control (there is an example in this thread) and
> 05_debian_theme could be customised.

Sure, but that's no what I understand for "with GRUB2 there is only one 
file to tweak", there are many and we (as admins) have to learn about 
them ;-)

>> And /boot/grub is plenty of small files:
> 
> So? You can add to them but there is nothing to take away or alter.

The less files for a bootloader, the better. Not a scientific statement, 
of course, just a wild-guess. 

>> So let's say I want to disallow GRUB2 from including my Windows
>> partition at the menu... should I tweak /etc/default/grub or should I
>> dive into /etc/grub.d/os-prober, or...?
> 
> GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER=true
> 
> in /etc/default/grub. It's documented. Alternatively be brutal and
> uninstall os-prober.

Thanks much... but documented where? :-?

And after adding that stanza, should I edit anything else or just it will 
be autoremoved at next boot?

>>> If I were a betting man, I'd bet that grub1 won't be available in
>>> Wheezy once it's published...
>>
>> And that was what I asked for, but I'm still waiting to see an official
>> statement for whatever decision they take. I can deal with either, but
>> I would like to be prepared for the worst ;-)
> 
> Some more old news.
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/09/msg2.html

***
"(...) Nervertheless, we're aware that for a minority of users, upgrading 
is not currently an option, because they rely on specific features of
GRUB Legacy that GRUB 2 doesn't provide.  For those users, GRUB Legacy
will continue being supported, at least up untill the Squeeze release."
***

My 0.2 cents go for that! I wish the same for wheezy O:-)

> And there is always the Release Notes for Squeeze. If neither is
> 'official' enough you can always get the Profect Leader to make a
> statement. :)
>
> Prepare for the worst. You won't go far wrong.

Ahhh, "there is always hope", like Arwen said...

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.25.19.14...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 19:34:27 +0200, Camaleón wrote:

> El 25/06/11 19:01, Tom H escribió:
>
>> For grub2, there's also just one file to tweak, "/etc/default/grub",
>> and the CLI tools are more powerful.
>
> Are your sure?
>
> test@debian:~$ ls -l /etc/grub*
> total 52
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6711 may 31 10:46 00_header
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5407 ene 18 12:44 05_debian_theme
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5898 may 31 10:46 10_linux
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5982 may 31 10:46 20_linux_xen
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5975 may 31 10:46 30_os-prober
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  214 may 31 10:46 40_custom
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root   95 may 31 10:46 41_custom
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  483 may 31 10:46 README

With Linux you have complete control - so you can alter any file you
wish. However, it is not usual (and maybe ill-advised) to change
00_header, 10_linux, 20_linux_xen or 30_os-prober. 40_custom is
completely under your control (there is an example in this thread) and
05_debian_theme could be customised.

> And /boot/grub is plenty of small files:

So? You can add to them but there is nothing to take away or alter.

> So let's say I want to disallow GRUB2 from including my Windows  
> partition at the menu... should I tweak /etc/default/grub or should I  
> dive into /etc/grub.d/os-prober, or...?

GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER=true

in /etc/default/grub. It's documented. Alternatively be brutal and
uninstall os-prober.
>
>> If I were a betting man, I'd bet that grub1 won't be available in
>> Wheezy once it's published...
>
> And that was what I asked for, but I'm still waiting to see an official  
> statement for whatever decision they take. I can deal with either, but I  
> would like to be prepared for the worst ;-)

Some more old news.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/09/msg2.html

And there is always the Release Notes for Squeeze. If neither is
'official' enough you can always get the Profect Leader to make a
statement. :)

Prepare for the worst. You won't go far wrong.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110625183050.GN19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

El 25/06/11 19:01, Tom H escribió:


On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Camaleón  wrote:



I also find GRUB legacy more suitable to my needs. I don't remember any
problem with it, I mean, nothing that could not be solved by manually
editing the "menu.lst" or by launching GRUB's legacy console from the
menu. It had a small set of options and files to tweak (compared to GRUB
2) but I see that as a plus rather than a weakness because that makes it
less vulnerable to flaws. Of course, I understand there are people with
new needs that find GRUB 2 perfect for them, so having both options
available in the installer is, IMO, a perfect deal :-)


For grub2, there's also just one file to tweak, "/etc/default/grub",
and the CLI tools are more powerful.


Are your sure?

test@debian:~$ ls -l /etc/grub*
total 52
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6711 may 31 10:46 00_header
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5407 ene 18 12:44 05_debian_theme
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5898 may 31 10:46 10_linux
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5982 may 31 10:46 20_linux_xen
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5975 may 31 10:46 30_os-prober
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  214 may 31 10:46 40_custom
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root   95 may 31 10:46 41_custom
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  483 may 31 10:46 README

test@debian:~$ cat /etc/grub.d/README

All executable files in this directory are processed in shell expansion 
order.


  00_*: Reserved for 00_header.
  10_*: Native boot entries.
  20_*: Third party apps (e.g. memtest86+).

The number namespace in-between is configurable by system installer 
and/or administrator.  For example, you can add an entry to boot another 
OS as 01_otheros, 11_otheros, etc, depending on the position you want it 
to occupy in the menu; and then adjust the default setting via 
/etc/default/grub.


And /boot/grub is plenty of small files:

test@debian:~$ ls -l /boot/grub | wc -l
206

So let's say I want to disallow GRUB2 from including my Windows 
partition at the menu... should I tweak /etc/default/grub or should I 
dive into /etc/grub.d/os-prober, or...?



If I were a betting man, I'd bet that grub1 won't be available in
Wheezy once it's published...


And that was what I asked for, but I'm still waiting to see an official 
statement for whatever decision they take. I can deal with either, but I 
would like to be prepared for the worst ;-)


Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/iu5673$sc5$1...@dough.gmane.org

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:31 PM, consul tores  wrote:
> 2011/6/24 Brian :
>> On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 21:35:16 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>
>>> Having switched to grub2 recently, I do that as well.  But I suspect
>>> most people will be content with the simpler configuration options
>>> offered by editing /etc/default/grub and running update-grub.
>>
>> That's me! Although I do have a little change made to debian_theme.
>>
>> Why is it some people dislike GRUB2? My experience isn't great but it
>> boots Debian kernels reliably on my machines. Nothing complicated I
>> admit, and I'm not overfussed about configuring it to display fancy
>> menus. What basic changes to grub.cfg cannot be made from the files in
>> /etc?
>
> Multibooting:
>
> It does not recognize Windows partitions correctly.
> It becomes crazy with ufs.
> Some times it recognize the same partition twice.
>
> It might has been build to work alone, which is not really necessary.

Have you filed bugs?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/banlktikramzlemwvu0uwkcptfong-fb...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Freeman  wrote:


> Grub2 didn't like my setup during upgrade.
>
> My menu.lst of Grub 0.97 included numerous different rc levels to select
> from. Just a way of selecting between different interfaces while booting.
>
> So the following blocks in the automagic section of menu.lst resulted in a 4
> item menu for each kernel, one item booting into GDM, the next starting
> xinit with Openbox--booting from rc5.d, rc4.d rc3.d and rc2.d respectively.
>
> ## altoption boot targets option
> ## multiple altoptions lines are allowed
> ## e.g. altoptions=(extra menu suffix) extra boot options
> ## altoptions=(single-user) single
> # altoptions=(GDM) 5 vga=791 quiet
> # altoptions=(Openbox) 4 vga=791 quiet
> # altoptions=(Screen) 3 vga=791
> # altoptions=(single-user mode) single
>
> When grub2 setup hit that, it gave me some garbled menu item that failed,
> followed by its basic boot items for console and maintenance.
>
> So now I have an /etc/grub.d/09_custom that renders a menu above Grub2's
> default menu. I manually edit it for kernel upgrades with "find and
> replace" of kernel numbers. I don't like having a fractured, two part menu
> that doesn't completely upgrade automagically. But it works:

This was a good Debianism that I wish the Debian maintainers had tried
to have integrated into grub2 upstream. They'd just need to make, for
example, "GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_ALTx" and "GRUB_TITLE_LINUX_ALTx",
available in "/etc/default/grub", with the corresponding changes in
"/usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig" and "/etc/grub.d/10_linux" for them to be
used.


>> As an aside: Is having 'DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE' and making the file
>> read-only really an invitation to do the opposite?
>
> Without any other information, I'd have to edit the file to see what
> happens. =:0

Same here! :)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=ka9+aacepj7f0zdwz6av6nat...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Camaleón  wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:42:40 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>>
>> For the record, I prefer grub1's config to grub2's but grub2's been
>> almost problem-free for me for a long time. Almost: one small problem
>> (Karmic's grub2 couldn't recognize Fedora's initrd when creating a
>> Fedora menu entry) and one big problem (until last summer, grub2
>> couldn't boot from mdraid metadata 1.x).
>
> I also find GRUB legacy more suitable to my needs. I don't remember any
> problem with it, I mean, nothing that could not be solved by manually
> editing the "menu.lst" or by launching GRUB's legacy console from the
> menu. It had a small set of options and files to tweak (compared to GRUB
> 2) but I see that as a plus rather than a weakness because that makes it
> less vulnerable to flaws. Of course, I understand there are people with
> new needs that find GRUB 2 perfect for them, so having both options
> available in the installer is, IMO, a perfect deal :-)

For grub2, there's also just one file to tweak, "/etc/default/grub",
and the CLI tools are more powerful.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that grub1 won't be available in
Wheezy once it's published...


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=ENoOdtUWs7=cu-xb9rb4avey...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 15:11:13 -0700, Freeman wrote:

> Grub2 didn't like my setup during upgrade. 
> 
> My menu.lst of Grub 0.97 included numerous different rc levels to select
> from.  Just a way of selecting between different interfaces while booting.
> 
> So the following blocks in the automagic section of menu.lst resulted in a 4
> item menu for each kernel, one item booting into GDM, the next starting xinit
> with Openbox--booting from rc5.d, rc4.d rc3.d and rc2.d respectively.

[Snip menu.lst fragment]
 
> When grub2 setup hit that, it gave me some garbled menu item that failed,
> followed by its basic boot items for console and maintenance.

The Release Notes for Squeeze offer advice on keeping GRUB Legacy and
chainloading GRUB 2. There is also a mention of possibly having to
adjust complex configurations to fit GRUB 2. You were in that category
so were forewarned some extra work was in prospect. It would have been
nice to have had a seamless conversion of menu.lst to grub.cfg but
sometimes it cannot be done. 

> So now I have an /etc/grub.d/09_custom that renders a menu above Grub2's
> default menu.  I manually edit it for kernel upgrades with "find and
> replace" of kernel numbers.  I don't like having a fractured, two part menu
> that doesn't completely upgrade automagically.  But it works:

You do not have to have it.

You are using 09_custom for its intended purpose; previously you edited
menu.lst. To boot with the latest kernel:

>   linux   /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.37-1-amd64

linux   /vmlinuz

>   initrd  /boot/initrd.img-2.6.37-1-amd64

initrd  /initrd.img

To tidy up the menu a non-executable 10_linux may be something to
consider.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110625125215.GK19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:20:21 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 19:13:27 +, Camaleón wrote:
> 
>> Nope, that's a GRUB's statement not a Debian's one :-)
> 
> You'll have to make do with this:
> 
> http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/GRUB2asDefault

Old stuff.

GRUB2 as default in the installer is a very good approach, as long as you 
still have the option to get GRUB legacy, which seems no longer possible.
 
>> There are many packages that are not being "actively" developed but
>> still maintained upstream (how about "Unison"?) like GRUB legacy is.
> 
> GRUB legacy is hardly being maintained upstream. It's on life-support.

It still receives bugfixes, enough for people who uses to install Debian 
"stable" and prefers "old-but-working-and-tested" packages than the 
bleeding edge.

>   > Only bugfixes will be made so that GRUB Legacy can stil be used for
>   > older systems.
> 
>> Nice speech,
> 
> Thank you - but it was of a 'get in touch with pragmatism' effort. :)
> 
>>  but I prefer to see the real numbers that support
>> it >:-)
> 
> You give me the number of Debian users and I'll make a stab at it. :)

Sadly there are no credible numbers that can be fetched. For this kind of 
decisions, I would prefer a poll or something in the like.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.25.08.44...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 25/06/11 06:51, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 21:35:16 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> 
>> Having switched to grub2 recently, I do that as well.  But I suspect
>> most people will be content with the simpler configuration options
>> offered by editing /etc/default/grub and running update-grub.
> 
> That's me! Although I do have a little change made to debian_theme.
> 
> Why is it some people dislike GRUB2? My experience isn't great but it
> boots Debian kernels reliably on my machines. Nothing complicated I
> admit, and I'm not overfussed about configuring it to display fancy
> menus. What basic changes to grub.cfg cannot be made from the files in
> /etc?
> 
> As an aside: Is having 'DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE' and making the file
> read-only really an invitation to do the opposite?
> 
> 
Indeed! - not only is /etc/default/grub the appropriate place to make
changes - it's simpler, and it shows respect for the developers taking
the time to document it as being the place to make (most) changes.

There's even a gui for changing from grub-legacy and grub2
(grub-choose-default)(Squeeze).

For the splash screens in grub2 try - gfxboot.

For gnome there is a package called startupmanager - which looks
interesting (though I don't run gnome).

For pure time-wasting distractions try grub-invaders, as a bonus it
loads very fast!

I agree that there have been some problems with grub2 during upgrades -
but for me it's worth it. Grub(legacy) was better than lilo, and grub2
is better than grub-legacy. I look forward to trying pxe from grub2 and
grub-coreboot on an old supported mb.

Cheers

-- 
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullsh#t. We're a
virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are.
~ Bill Hicks


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e055d35@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[consul tores]

2011/6/24 Brian :
> On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 21:35:16 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> Having switched to grub2 recently, I do that as well.  But I suspect
>> most people will be content with the simpler configuration options
>> offered by editing /etc/default/grub and running update-grub.
>
> That's me! Although I do have a little change made to debian_theme.
>
> Why is it some people dislike GRUB2? My experience isn't great but it
> boots Debian kernels reliably on my machines. Nothing complicated I
> admit, and I'm not overfussed about configuring it to display fancy
> menus. What basic changes to grub.cfg cannot be made from the files in
> /etc?

Multibooting:

It does not recognize Windows partitions correctly.
It becomes crazy with ufs.
Some times it recognize the same partition twice.

It might has been build to work alone, which is not really necessary.

>
> As an aside: Is having 'DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE' and making the file
> read-only really an invitation to do the opposite?
>
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/banlktimyvdsrpbm-a2o5zqy5ttq4osi...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Freeman]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 09:51:14PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 21:35:16 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> 
> > Having switched to grub2 recently, I do that as well.  But I suspect
> > most people will be content with the simpler configuration options
> > offered by editing /etc/default/grub and running update-grub.
> 
> That's me! Although I do have a little change made to debian_theme.
> 
> Why is it some people dislike GRUB2? My experience isn't great but it
> boots Debian kernels reliably on my machines. Nothing complicated I

Grub2 didn't like my setup during upgrade. 

My menu.lst of Grub 0.97 included numerous different rc levels to select
from.  Just a way of selecting between different interfaces while booting.

So the following blocks in the automagic section of menu.lst resulted in a 4
item menu for each kernel, one item booting into GDM, the next starting
xinit with Openbox--booting from rc5.d, rc4.d rc3.d and rc2.d respectively.
  
 ## altoption boot targets option
 ## multiple altoptions lines are allowed
 ## e.g. altoptions=(extra menu suffix) extra boot options
 ##  altoptions=(single-user) single
 # altoptions=(GDM) 5 vga=791 quiet
 # altoptions=(Openbox) 4 vga=791 quiet 
 # altoptions=(Screen) 3 vga=791
 # altoptions=(single-user mode) single
 
 ## controls how many kernels should be put into the menu.lst
 ## only counts the first occurence of a kernel, not the
 ## alternative kernel options
 ## e.g. howmany=all
 ##  howmany=7
 # howmany=all 

When grub2 setup hit that, it gave me some garbled menu item that failed,
followed by its basic boot items for console and maintenance.

So now I have an /etc/grub.d/09_custom that renders a menu above Grub2's
default menu.  I manually edit it for kernel upgrades with "find and
replace" of kernel numbers.  I don't like having a fractured, two part menu
that doesn't completely upgrade automagically.  But it works:
 
 #!/bin/sh
 exec tail -n +3 $0
 # mine
 
 menuentry "> -- // Deneb HD II -- Debian GNU/Linux  -- <" {
 set root=(hd1,mdos3)
 }
 
 menuentry 'Debian GNU/Linux, Kernel 2.6.37-1-amd64 (GDM)' --class debian
 --class gnu-linux --class gnu --class os {
insmod part_msdos
insmod ext2
set root='(hd1,msdos3)'
search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set
ab51dc6e-10ca-4c02-b9dd-d6a4d393cb9e
echo'Loading Linux 2.6.37-1-amd64 ...'
linux   /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.37-1-amd64
root=UUID=ab51dc6e-10ca-4c02-b9dd-d6a4d393cb9e ro irqpoll 5 quiet
echo'Loading initial ramdisk ...'
initrd  /boot/initrd.img-2.6.37-1-amd64
 }
 menuentry 'Debian GNU/Linux, Kernel 2.6.37-1-amd64 (OpenBox)' --class debian
 --class gnu-linux --class gnu --class os {
insmod part_msdos
insmod ext2
set root='(hd1,msdos3)'
search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set
ab51dc6e-10ca-4c02-b9dd-d6a4d393cb9e
echo'Loading Linux 2.6.37-1-amd64 ...'
linux   /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.37-1-amd64
root=UUID=ab51dc6e-10ca-4c02-b9dd-d6a4d393cb9e ro irqpoll 4
echo'Loading initial ramdisk ...'
initrd  /boot/initrd.img-2.6.37-1-amd64
 }
 menuentry 'Debian GNU/Linux, Kernel 2.6.37-1-amd64 (Screen)' --class debian
 --class gnu-linux --class gnu --class os {
insmod part_msdos
insmod ext2
set root='(hd1,msdos3)'
search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set
ab51dc6e-10ca-4c02-b9dd-d6a4d393cb9e
echo'Loading Linux 2.6.37-1-amd64 ...'
linux   /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.37-1-amd64
root=UUID=ab51dc6e-10ca-4c02-b9dd-d6a4d393cb9e ro irqpoll 3
echo'Loading initial ramdisk ...'
initrd  /boot/initrd.img-2.6.37-1-amd64

 . . . 


> admit, and I'm not overfussed about configuring it to display fancy
> menus. What basic changes to grub.cfg cannot be made from the files in
> /etc?
> 
> As an aside: Is having 'DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE' and making the file
> read-only really an invitation to do the opposite?
> 

Without any other information, I'd have to edit the file to see what
happens. =:0

-- 
Regards,
Freeman

"Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux) is the
answer." --Somebody


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110624221113.GA4325@Deneb.office

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 21:35:16 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:

> Having switched to grub2 recently, I do that as well.  But I suspect
> most people will be content with the simpler configuration options
> offered by editing /etc/default/grub and running update-grub.

That's me! Although I do have a little change made to debian_theme.

Why is it some people dislike GRUB2? My experience isn't great but it
boots Debian kernels reliably on my machines. Nothing complicated I
admit, and I'm not overfussed about configuring it to display fancy
menus. What basic changes to grub.cfg cannot be made from the files in
/etc?

As an aside: Is having 'DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE' and making the file
read-only really an invitation to do the opposite?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110624205114.GJ19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 19:13:27 +, Camaleón wrote:

> Nope, that's a GRUB's statement not a Debian's one :-)

You'll have to make do with this:

http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/GRUB2asDefault

> There are many packages that are not being "actively" developed but still 
> maintained upstream (how about "Unison"?) like GRUB legacy is.

GRUB legacy is hardly being maintained upstream. It's on life-support.

  > Only bugfixes will be made so that GRUB Legacy can stil be used for older
  > systems.

> Nice speech,

Thank you - but it was of a 'get in touch with pragmatism' effort. :)

>  but I prefer to see the real numbers that support 
> it >:-)

You give me the number of Debian users and I'll make a stab at it. :)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110624202021.GI19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Sven Joachim]

On 2011-06-24 19:57 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

> While menu.lst has some lines, grub.cfg has tons of lines and using
> GRUB2 with comfort, we need to edit grub.cfg manually ...

Having switched to grub2 recently, I do that as well.  But I suspect
most people will be content with the simpler configuration options
offered by editing /etc/default/grub and running update-grub.

Oh, and my grub.cfg is not longer than menu.lst.  The shell scripts in
/etc/grub.d put quite a lot of stuff into the file that isn't really
necessary.

> and well, always backup grub.cfg

If you want to edit it manually, that's always a good idea.  Even
better, put it under version control.

> since several packages will re-edit it.

That's easy to avoid, just put the editing script aside:

# dpkg-divert --add --rename /usr/sbin/update-grub
# ln -s /bin/true /usr/sbin/update-grub

> Wow, I'm not the only troll ;).

I have shied away from grub2 for many years due to its perceived
complexity, but if you don't use all the bells and whistles it is not
really any more complicated than grub1.  The biggest problem is still
the meager documentation, but grub1's manual was not stellar either.

Sven


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878vsrhvkb@turtle.gmx.de

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:18:27 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 17:47:44 +, Camaleón wrote:
> 
>> That would be fine... if there was such a public statement. This is the
>> first time I read that a legacy piece of software is out just because
>> of its age because it still receives bugfixes.
> 
> Will this do (The GRUB Development section)?
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/

Nope, that's a GRUB's statement not a Debian's one :-)

There are many packages that are not being "actively" developed but still 
maintained upstream (how about "Unison"?) like GRUB legacy is.

Anyway...

"GRUB Legacy is no longer being developed. For the differences between 
GRUB Legacy and GRUB, see the current status on the wiki and the Grub 
Legacy Documentation."

http://grub.enbug.org/CurrentStatus

sm01@stt008:~$ LANG=POSIX; wget http://grub.enbug.org/CurrentStatus
--2011-06-24 21:08:55--  http://grub.enbug.org/CurrentStatus
Resolving grub.enbug.org... 211.14.6.124
Connecting to grub.enbug.org|211.14.6.124|:80... failed: Connection 
refused.

¿?
 
>> It can fit some use cases but I'm afraid it leaves others out...
> 
> The technical considerations involved in constructing the installer
> outweigh any perceived inconvenience to a user is one way of looking at
> it. There are far more winners than losers.

Nice speech, but I prefer to see the real numbers that support 
it >:-)

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.24.19.13...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 17:47:44 +, Camaleón wrote:

> That would be fine... if there was such a public statement. This is the 
> first time I read that a legacy piece of software is out just because of 
> its age because it still receives bugfixes.

Will this do (The GRUB Development section)?

http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/

> It can fit some use cases but I'm afraid it leaves others out...

The technical considerations involved in constructing the installer
outweigh any perceived inconvenience to a user is one way of looking at
it. There are far more winners than losers.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110624181827.GH19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Ralf Mardorf]

"I can live without the pretty background pictures(s)"

Hehe ;). +1, resp. I won't call those pictures pretty :D.

GRUB2 is a PITA, but as mentioned before, very entertaining, as long as
you are jobless and has got more time as usual :D.

While menu.lst has some lines, grub.cfg has tons of lines and using
GRUB2 with comfort, we need to edit grub.cfg manually ... and well,
always backup grub.cfg, since several packages will re-edit it.

Wow, I'm not the only troll ;).

Regards,

Ralf


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1308938228.14697.28.camel@debian

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:49:27 +0100, Lisi wrote:

> On Friday 24 June 2011 18:33:02 Glenn English wrote:
>>  I can live without the pretty background pictures(s)...
> 
> I _prefer_ to live without the background pictures. ;-)

He, he... the first thing I did as soon as I saw my poor GRUB's menu with 
all that shiny colors was returning to the quiet and peaceful blue and 
black schema.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.24.18.12...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:37:04 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 15:18:08 +, Camaleón wrote:
> 
>> No? Then why removing it from the installer? :-?
> 
> There is no further upstream development of it. Debian will not maintain
> it. It's dead. So GRUB2 became a release goal for Squeeze.

That would be fine... if there was such a public statement. This is the 
first time I read that a legacy piece of software is out just because of 
its age because it still receives bugfixes.

>> But I like Debian precisely for those things that make it unique, like
>> giving users as many options as it can, not removing them without a
>> strong and meditated reason ;-)
> 
> Upgrading from Lenny to Squeeze gives the choice of keeping an existing
> GRUB or converting to GRUB2. With a new install it's GRUB2 only. But the
> choice to go for GRUB legacy exists afterwards, which seems reasonable
> to me.

It can fit some use cases but I'm afraid it leaves others out...

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.24.17.47...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Lisi]

On Friday 24 June 2011 18:33:02 Glenn English wrote:
>  I can live without the pretty background pictures(s)...

I _prefer_ to live without the background pictures. ;-)

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201106241849.27983.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Ralf Mardorf]

> I mean, nothing that could not be solved by manually 
> editing the "menu.lst"
> 
I'm editing grub.cfg manually ;). Doing that GRUB2 is ok too, at least
for my needs. But indeed, e.g. sub-menus aren't supported by all
versions of GRUB2. If you need to be on the safe side, avoid the usage
of GRUB2. For my machine at home I can use GRUB2 and laugh a lot, since
I've got some time, because I'm jobless at the moment ;).

IMO GRUB1 always is the better choice, but GRUB2 can be very
entertaining :D.

Trollish regards,

Ralf 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1308936045.14697.13.camel@debian

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Glenn English]

On Jun 24, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Camaleón wrote:

> When I installed Squeeze, back five months ago when still tagged as 
> "testing", it was indeed available, I mean, the installer asked what to 
> put, GRUB legacy or GRUB2. Are you sure that now Squeeze installer has 
> removed that option? :-?

Yup; I am now. I thought I might have missed something until I read comments 
from others on this list.

GRUB's a bootloader, ferkrisake, not Photoshop. I'll certainly admit that lots 
of cool stuff (RAID, mdadm, etc.) have come along since it was first designed. 
And that there's likely been some hacking of the original code to deal with 
that. 

But I'd have hoped that rewriting GRUB meant a smaller, simpler (aka more 
reliable) program with a simpler configuration, not bigger and more complex, 
and maybe it could try to boot from several devices/partitions, in case RAID 
broke -- I can live without the pretty background pictures(s)...

-- 
Glenn English



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/e0b58584-3587-42f1-bbc3-e2ff8d475...@slsware.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 15:18:08 +, Camaleón wrote:

> No? Then why removing it from the installer? :-?

There is no further upstream development of it. Debian will not maintain
it. It's dead. So GRUB2 became a release goal for Squeeze.

> Oh, sure. 
> 
> But I like Debian precisely for those things that make it unique, like 
> giving users as many options as it can, not removing them without a 
> strong and meditated reason ;-)

Upgrading from Lenny to Squeeze gives the choice of keeping an existing
GRUB or converting to GRUB2. With a new install it's GRUB2 only. But the
choice to go for GRUB legacy exists afterwards, which seems reasonable
to me.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110624163704.GF19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:42:40 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Camaleón  wrote:
>>
>> Yesterday I had to perform an new install with the latest wheezy
>> snapshot (weekly CD#1 image).
>>
>> 1/ I could only get grub-pc, no more questions about installing GRUB
>> legacy or select the new version... is that right? I thought GRUB2 is
>> still an ongoing project, quite stable but still getting many
>> enhancements.
>>
>> Point 1/ worries me a bit, because GRUB2 was not going to be my
>> preferred option for wheezy... is there any chance to get GRUB legacy
>> at install time or that option won't be present anymore?
> 
> I was surprised to see grub1 in Squeeze. It's still in the Wheezy and
> Sid repos though, even if it isn't available through d-i.

That was also my feeling when I first installed squeeze, in the time it 
was still "testing". For that reason I was suprised to get GRUB 2 in 
Wheezy installer, without further questions or options to select GRUB 
legacy.

> Would grub2 really have been made the default in Squeeze if it weren't
> stable?

Well, sometimes devels are very exited with new additions and want to see 
them as the default options, which I think is not as bad as it seems 
provided there is also a chance to select another options.

> For the record, I prefer grub1's config to grub2's but grub2's been
> almost problem-free for me for a long time. Almost: one small problem
> (Karmic's grub2 couldn't recognize Fedora's initrd when creating a
> Fedora menu entry) and one big problem (until last summer, grub2
> couldn't boot from mdraid metadata 1.x).

I also find GRUB legacy more suitable to my needs. I don't remember any 
problem with it, I mean, nothing that could not be solved by manually 
editing the "menu.lst" or by launching GRUB's legacy console from the 
menu. It had a small set of options and files to tweak (compared to GRUB 
2) but I see that as a plus rather than a weakness because that makes it 
less vulnerable to flaws. Of course, I understand there are people with 
new needs that find GRUB 2 perfect for them, so having both options 
available in the installer is, IMO, a perfect deal :-)

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.24.15.30...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:08:34 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 15:42:43 +, Camaleón wrote:
> 
>> Point 1/ worries me a bit, because GRUB2 was not going to be my
>> preferred option for wheezy... is there any chance to get GRUB legacy
>> at install time or that option won't be present anymore?
> 
> Doesn't look like it. 

No? Then why removing it from the installer? :-?

> But grub-legacy awaits you after the install.

Oh, sure. 

But I like Debian precisely for those things that make it unique, like 
giving users as many options as it can, not removing them without a 
strong and meditated reason ;-)

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.24.15.18...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:07:10 -0600, Glenn English wrote:

> On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> 
>> Yesterday I had to perform an new install with the latest wheezy
>> snapshot (weekly CD#1 image).
>> 
>> Some thoughs while dealing with the expert install...
>> 
>> 1/ I could only get grub-pc, no more questions about installing GRUB
>> legacy or select the new version... is that right? I thought GRUB2 is
>> still an ongoing project, quite stable but still getting many
>> enhancements.
> 
> Same here, except I installed squeeze (netinst CD downloaded 3 or 4 days
> ago). I was surprised to see only GRUB2 available.

It has been also removed from there (squeeze)? Wow...

>> Point 1/ worries me a bit, because GRUB2 was not going to be my
>> preferred option for wheezy...
> 
> This is a server, not a gaming console, that I'm loading up. And I have
> to admin it via SSH from 1K miles away. I'd really like to be able to
> use the hopelessly antiquated, but known working, GRUB legacy.

+1

I do make tests for the new stuff (GRUB2, GNOME3, systemd -when/if it 
comes, etc...) on separate computers, dedicated to such tasks.

On servers and workstations, though, I give a couple of years before 
introducing new stuff and given that the booloader is an important piece 
of the puzzle, in this case I prefer to take the conservative path.
 
> Squeeze maintainers, Did I not see something I should have? Is GRUB2 in
> good enough condition that it can be used on production servers? Is the
> next CD going to have GRUB legacy available?

When I installed Squeeze, back five months ago when still tagged as 
"testing", it was indeed available, I mean, the installer asked what to 
put, GRUB legacy or GRUB2. Are you sure that now Squeeze installer has 
removed that option? :-?

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.24.15.14...@gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Tom H]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Camaleón  wrote:
>
> Yesterday I had to perform an new install with the latest wheezy snapshot
> (weekly CD#1 image).
>
> 1/ I could only get grub-pc, no more questions about installing GRUB
> legacy or select the new version... is that right? I thought GRUB2 is
> still an ongoing project, quite stable but still getting many
> enhancements.
>
> Point 1/ worries me a bit, because GRUB2 was not going to be my preferred
> option for wheezy... is there any chance to get GRUB legacy at install
> time or that option won't be present anymore?

I was surprised to see grub1 in Squeeze. It's still in the Wheezy and
Sid repos though, even if it isn't available through d-i.

Would grub2 really have been made the default in Squeeze if it weren't stable?

For the record, I prefer grub1's config to grub2's but grub2's been
almost problem-free for me for a long time. Almost: one small problem
(Karmic's grub2 couldn't recognize Fedora's initrd when creating a
Fedora menu entry) and one big problem (until last summer, grub2
couldn't boot from mdraid metadata 1.x).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTingJ654kb=erelwzn5vrrcwdyx...@mail.gmail.com

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Brian]

On Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 15:42:43 +, Camaleón wrote:

> Point 1/ worries me a bit, because GRUB2 was not going to be my preferred 
> option for wheezy... is there any chance to get GRUB legacy at install 
> time or that option won't be present anymore?

Doesn't look like it. But grub-legacy awaits you after the install.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110623170834.GE19572@desktop

Re: No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Glenn English]

On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Camaleón wrote:

> Yesterday I had to perform an new install with the latest wheezy snapshot 
> (weekly CD#1 image).
> 
> Some thoughs while dealing with the expert install...
> 
> 1/ I could only get grub-pc, no more questions about installing GRUB 
> legacy or select the new version... is that right? I thought GRUB2 is 
> still an ongoing project, quite stable but still getting many 
> enhancements.

Same here, except I installed squeeze (netinst CD downloaded 3 or 4 days ago). 
I was surprised to see only GRUB2 available.

> Point 1/ worries me a bit, because GRUB2 was not going to be my preferred 
> option for wheezy...

This is a server, not a gaming console, that I'm loading up. And I have to 
admin it via SSH from 1K miles away. I'd really like to be able to use the 
hopelessly antiquated, but known working, GRUB legacy.

Squeeze maintainers, Did I not see something I should have? Is GRUB2 in good 
enough condition that it can be used on production servers? Is the next CD 
going to have GRUB legacy available?

-- 
Glenn English



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/caf0ab3f-4cf3-4500-b26e-d6a218665...@slsware.com

No more GRUB legacy at install time since wheezy?

[Camaleón]

Hello,

Yesterday I had to perform an new install with the latest wheezy snapshot 
(weekly CD#1 image).

Some thoughs while dealing with the expert install...

1/ I could only get grub-pc, no more questions about installing GRUB 
legacy or select the new version... is that right? I thought GRUB2 is 
still an ongoing project, quite stable but still getting many 
enhancements.

2/ I had to add additional online repositories to get the GNOME 
environment, with the CD repos I get only the basic pattern and tools. 
What does the first CD contain? Only the bare base packages?

3/ I had to select twice the option to load reiserfs module for the 
partitioner. The first selection seemed that did not stick and had to  
return to the main menu for a second time so I can get reiserfs 
filesystem as an option.

Point 1/ worries me a bit, because GRUB2 was not going to be my preferred 
option for wheezy... is there any chance to get GRUB legacy at install 
time or that option won't be present anymore?

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.06.23.15.42...@gmail.com