[lfs-support] Sorry my mistake! Was: Bison tests suite fails to compile LFS 7.4 (6.31 page 144)
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:48:22AM +, Bernard Hurley wrote: Hi all, The Bison test suite (LFS 7.4 6.31 page 144) fails to stopping compile with this message:[1] Sorry I had forgotten to install flex. I had done everything else including the synlinks and the lex script! I didn't find out until I got to bc-1.06.95 so I guess I will have to reinstall the other packages up to there. Sorry for the noise! Bernard. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.7.1 header file search verification failure
I am building GCC 4.7.1 (book says to use 4.7.2). My book version is 7.3, so I am not using the latest version of the book. I have built several systems with 4.7.1 instead of 4.7.1. My output of grep 'SEARCH.*/usr/lib' dummy.log |sed 's|; |\n|g' is: SEARCH_DIR(/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib) SEARCH_DIR(/usr/lib) SEARCH_DIR(/lib); I noticed that my output here is completely off from what the book says it should be. Should I recompile GCC? On Nov 6, 2013 1:33 AM, Pierre Labastie pierre.labas...@neuf.fr wrote: Le 06/11/2013 03:04, Douglas R. Reno a écrit : Douglas R. Reno renodr2002 at gmail.com writes: Hello, I am having a completely different output than the book says when running grep -B4 '^ / usr/include' dummy.log, I get the following output: ignoring nonexistent directory /tools/ lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.1/../../../../ i686-pc-linux- gnu/include ignoring duplicate directory /usr/ include #include ... search starts here: #include ... search starts here: /usr/include And that is all the output I get. I am using OpenSUSE 12.1 as a host. Can you please tell me what I did wrong and how to fix it? I would also like to bring up that my output from grep -o '/usr/lib.*/ crt[1in].*succeeded' dummy.log reads: /usr/lib/crt1.o succeeded /usr/lib/crti.o succeeded /usr/lib/crtn.o succeeded Also, i am using GCC 4.7.1 instead of 4.7.2, if that helps any. I have built several other systems with that same version. Do you mean you build GCC 4.7.1 or that GCC 4.7.1 is on the host? If you are building GCC 4.7,x you do not have the latest version of the book, do you? What about the SEARCH_DIR outputs? Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.7.1 header file search verification failure
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:30:58AM -0600, Douglas R. Reno wrote: I am building GCC 4.7.1 (book says to use 4.7.2). My book version is 7.3, so I am not using the latest version of the book. I have built several systems with 4.7.1 instead of 4.7.1. You seem to be confused about *where* you are in the book, and I suspect you are looking at multiple versions of it. Your heading is 'Chapter 6.7.1 header file search verification failure' but in all of the books since (at least) 7.2 the section is 6.10. 7.3 is at : http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.3/chapter06/adjusting.html My output of grep 'SEARCH.*/usr/lib' dummy.log |sed 's|; |\n|g' is: SEARCH_DIR(/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib) SEARCH_DIR(/usr/lib) SEARCH_DIR(/lib); And on that page I've linked to, it says: | If everything is working correctly, there should be no errors, and |the output of the last command (allowing for platform-specific |target triplets) will be: | |SEARCH_DIR(/tools/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib) |SEARCH_DIR(/usr/lib) |SEARCH_DIR(/lib); Which appears to match your results. For 7.4, the '/tools' match disappears. Perhaps you are trying to build something that is between 7.2 and 7.3, but comparing it to the 7.4 or current svn book ? Or maybe you are building 7.3 except for sticking with an older gcc-4.7 release. That seems weird, but I'm sure you will think many things _I_ do are weird. I can't imagine why you would want to build such an old version - for me, stable 7.4 is verging on 'old' (I'm from the LFS is near the bleeding edge school) - but your system, your rules and the *matching* instructions should still work. But please be _clear_ about which version you are using, and what variations you have made, when you post here. At the moment, people will probably assume you are building 7.4 if you say nothing. I was going to moan about you top-posting, but I see you are using gmail so I guess you don't have any real choice if you are using its web interface - sucks, doesn't it. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.7.1 header file search verification failure
On 2013-11-06 13:11, Ken Moffat wrote: I was going to moan about you top-posting, but I see you are using gmail so I guess you don't have any real choice if you are using its web interface - sucks, doesn't it. Sadly, Thunderbird now defaults to top-posting in replies too. -- Igor Živković http://www.slashtime.net/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.7.1 header file search verification failure
Yes, the Gmail web interface is horrible. I fixed my problem (I was in the end of installing GCC). I found that I incorrectly typed the CC symlink, and it was using the CC symlink from /tools/bin, not /usr/bin. Thank you all for the help Douglas Reno On Nov 6, 2013 6:16 AM, Igor Živković cont...@igor-zivkovic.from.hr wrote: On 2013-11-06 13:11, Ken Moffat wrote: I was going to moan about you top-posting, but I see you are using gmail so I guess you don't have any real choice if you are using its web interface - sucks, doesn't it. Sadly, Thunderbird now defaults to top-posting in replies too. -- Igor Živković http://www.slashtime.net/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] 8.3 - Kernel Build
Hello again, I am surprised and confused by the warnings and instructions in Section 8.3 - can someone please elaborate on the points below? I have previously rebuild the kernel several times on a variety of distros and although instructions differ there has always been one unshakable thing in common: the kernel sources always always always live below /usr/src/linux. I have just checked my host system (a recent clean install of slackware - running 3.2.29-smp) and it too has a symlink from /usr/src/linux to the current source tree. So the obvious questions arise: - Where should the kernel source be kept? Presumably below /sources with all the rest? - What are these dire consequences which are alluded to in the warning box at the end of 8.3.1? - Is this a LFS-specific problem or are other distro making a mistake? As just stated there seems to be such a symlink on slackware and I had a brief flirtation with gentoo which I am sure also store kernel source below /usr/src/linux? Again, many thanks, Richard. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 8.3 - Kernel Build
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:22:23PM +, Richard wrote: Hello again, I am surprised and confused by the warnings and instructions in Section 8.3 - can someone please elaborate on the points below? I have previously rebuild the kernel several times on a variety of distros and although instructions differ there has always been one unshakable thing in common: the kernel sources always always always live below /usr/src/linux. I have just checked my host system (a recent clean install of slackware - running 3.2.29-smp) and it too has a symlink from /usr/src/linux to the current source tree. So the obvious questions arise: - Where should the kernel source be kept? Presumably below /sources with all the rest? Keep it anywhere you like! Or don't keep it extracted [ I believe that certain iptables-related things want kernel source, but that is extremely unusual and certainly iptables itself doesn't need the kernel source for normal builds ]. Apart from during the build of LFS, where root is the only user, there is no need to build the kernel as root. For years, my kernel source lived in /home/ken. I only moved it out of there to avoid the waste of backing it up : as long as you can recreate the .config, an extracted kernel tree isn't needed. - What are these dire consequences which are alluded to in the warning box at the end of 8.3.1? - Is this a LFS-specific problem or are other distro making a mistake? As just stated there seems to be such a symlink on slackware and I had a brief flirtation with gentoo which I am sure also store kernel source below /usr/src/linux? I have a very vague recollection that one or two packages (probably not in BLFS) used to pick up kernel details by looking at /usr/src/linux , if it existed, in the very distant past. ISTR they actually wanted to know the capabilities of the _running_ kernel. But yes, we consider that everyone making an unnecessary /usr/src/linux symlink is mistaken, just as we consider that updating the kernel headers when updating the kernel is wrong. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 8.3 - Kernel Build
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:47:42PM +, Ken Moffat wrote: I have a very vague recollection that one or two packages (probably not in BLFS) used to pick up kernel details by looking at /usr/src/linux , if it existed, in the very distant past. ISTR they actually wanted to know the capabilities of the _running_ kernel. To clarify: consider the situation where you suspect you have a kernel bug. Say you are now on 3.12.0 and had previously used 3.11.5. As a first step, boot 3.11.5 [ assuming you kept it around, of course ] to see if things are different. Any application looking at /usr/src/linux has no guarantees that the source (or indeed the .config there) matches what is running. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 8.3 - Kernel Build
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote: just as we consider that updating the kernel headers when updating the kernel is wrong. Why is this considered wrong? -- Jack -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.7.1 header file search verification failure
Igor Živković wrote: On 2013-11-06 13:11, Ken Moffat wrote: I was going to moan about you top-posting, but I see you are using gmail so I guess you don't have any real choice if you are using its web interface - sucks, doesn't it. Sadly, Thunderbird now defaults to top-posting in replies too. You might want to try seamonkey. Edit Mail Newsgroups Account Settings Composition Addressing Automatically quote the original message when replying Then, start my reply below the quote Maybe TB has a similar setting. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 8.3 - Kernel Build
stosss wrote: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote: just as we consider that updating the kernel headers when updating the kernel is wrong. Why is this considered wrong? The headers are used when building glibc. Any program that uses them need to use the same ones that glibc used when built. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] 8.3 - Kernel Build
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote: stosss wrote: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote: just as we consider that updating the kernel headers when updating the kernel is wrong. Why is this considered wrong? The headers are used when building glibc. Any program that uses them need to use the same ones that glibc used when built. Okay! Got it. -- Jack -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-support] glibc build in LFS7.4.
My Chapter 6 glibc check gave four errors. Three of them (getaddrinfo4, annexc and run-conformtest) are expected but the fourth in globtest is not mentioned in the book. Here is the immediate context: /bin/sh globtest.sh /sources/glibc-build/ ' /sources/glibc-build/elf/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --library-path /sources/glibc-build:/sources/glibc-build/math:/sources/glibc-build/elf:/sources/glibc-build/dlfcn:/sources/glibc-build/nss:/sources/glibc-build/nis:/sources/glibc-build/rt:/sources/glibc-build/resolv:/sources/glibc-build/crypt:/sources/glibc-build/nptl' \ ' /sources/glibc-build/elf/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --library-path /sources/glibc-build:/sources/glibc-build/math:/sources/glibc-build/elf:/sources/glibc-build/dlfcn:/sources/glibc-build/nss:/sources/glibc-build/nis:/sources/glibc-build/rt:/sources/glibc-build/resolv:/sources/glibc-build/crypt:/sources/glibc-build/nptl' ' env' make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/posix/globtest.out] Error 1 Is this a serious error and, if so, how should I deal with it? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.7.1 header file search verification failure
On 11/06/2013 06:50 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Igor Živković wrote: Sadly, Thunderbird now defaults to top-posting in replies too. You might want to try seamonkey. Nah, I don't like all-in-one solutions. Edit Mail Newsgroups Account Settings Composition Addressing Automatically quote the original message when replying Then, start my reply below the quote Maybe TB has a similar setting. I was just saying that Mozilla devs changed the default setting in release 24. I know how to set it back, Bruce. :-) -- Igor Živković http://www.slashtime.net/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.7.1 header file search verification failure
Thank you for telling me how to avoid top posting in Gmail, Bruce. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.7.1 header file search verification failure
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:50:07 -0600, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote: Igor Živković wrote: On 2013-11-06 13:11, Ken Moffat wrote: I was going to moan about you top-posting, but I see you are using gmail so I guess you don't have any real choice if you are using its web interface - sucks, doesn't it. Sadly, Thunderbird now defaults to top-posting in replies too. You might want to try seamonkey. Edit Mail Newsgroups Account Settings Composition Addressing Automatically quote the original message when replying Then, start my reply below the quote Maybe TB has a similar setting. -- Bruce I'm sure there will be always another top-posting from new members, so I think about top-posting should be mentioned on LFS web. [ Sandy Widianto ] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Chapter 6.7.1 header file search verification failure
On Nov 6, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Sandy Widianto wrote: I'm sure there will be always another top-posting from new members, so I think about top-posting should be mentioned on LFS web. [ Sandy Widianto ] We have pointers to proper posting: Go to the Mailing Lists link at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org Then go to the link described in the sentence Information on how to post messages through Gmane is available on theposting messages page which links to Posting messages http://gmane.org/post.php Sincerely, William Harrington -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-support] Configuring and Installing GRUB for {,U}EFI
On 10/28/2013 10:55 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Dan McGhee wrote: When all this is successful, I could write the procedure up and post it. Then, if anyone wanted to, it could be put in the book somewhere. I could also write a hint if that were more practical. For now, just let us know your results. -- Bruce So far my results are just learning. I really haven't done anything yet, but some people may be interested in what I have found to date. This is long. Booting Linux in general, or LFS specifically *can be* as straightforward as it always has been. But if someone wants to make use of their UEFI--formerly EFI--firmware, then it is not so straightforward and can be down right complex. The first thing to note, in the current milieu, is that if you want to use *secure boot*--which is an add-on to and not synonymous with UEFI--you can install GRUB like you always have, but you will never see it boot anything because, if you're doing it in a pre-UEFI fashion, it's irrelevant to secure boot and won't be seen. Secure boot is an option in Linux right now if and only if you are using Ubuntu12.10, Fedora, OpenSuse--I don't know the version numbers--or if you have paid Microsoft $95 to let you write a key that you can use with your firmware and then figure out how to write a file that will check with the firmware to make sure all is OK and then check with the bootloader to make sure it's not vicious or malicious. (Sorry for the sarcasm). All of this means that you must turn off secure boot in your firmware setup. So far the only thing we have done in our preparation to boot LFS is turn off secure boot. Onward! The next option is to turn turn on legacy mode or CMS in the firmware. This is vendor specific so there are probably a number of things this is called. It just means going back to the way things used to be.--a bootloader in the first sector of the disk. In days of yore this was the way all computers shipped. We are all familiar with it--one bootloader, chain-linking and four primary partitions. Except if you have a GPT partition table. To insure backwards compatibility GPT partition tables now have an area at the beginning of the disk called the Protective MBR Layer. This is the place where GRUB would go on a GPT disk. This is also the place at which things start to muddy a bit. BIOS based firmware could handle only one bootloader, because it was limited to one physical spot on a fixed disk. UEFI overcomes that by using a Boot Manager to select the boot loader, and there can be, theoretically, any number of boot loaders, because these loaders now reside in a partition and not an actual physical spot on the disk. The following is the snipped results of my running parted -l /dev/sda Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 1049kB 420MB 419MB ntfs Basic data partition hidden, diag 2 420MB 693MB 273MB fat32 EFI system partition boot If someone has this partition, chances are they've been booting in EFI Mode. What I've read so far is that the EFI partition is usually the first partition of the disk, but it's not on mine. Another vendor thing I think. This partition contains two directories: boot and EFI. I've discovered that it's standard in Linux to mount it at /boot/efi--that's the way it is in my Ubuntu system and it's listed in /etc/fstab. Here are the results of ls /boot/efi/EFI using Ubuntu on my HP-Envy: Boot HP Microsoft ubuntu I've put this in here because the Boot Manager--whether written by HP or Microsoft I don't know--reads this directory and gives, as choices, the names of the directories--Boot comes across as Recovery for an option. You can access the Boot Manager by interrupting the boot process. On my machine it's done by holding the ESC key during boot and then selecting what I want. This is what I had to do to get to Ubuntu after I first installed it. The problem is in getting the Boot Manager to have a different default selection other than Microsoft. The solution to that is not trivial and I don't want to write about it until I study the process some more and, possibly, try it. But at this point let me show you the magic. Since version 3.3, the Linux kernel has had efi hooks. So--and I think it's this simple--you could create a directory in /boot/efi/EFi--let's call it LFS-7.4--and put the kernel in it. Then LFS-7.4 would appear as option in the EFI Boot Manager, you select it and Holy shiny boots, Batman, there's my new LFS system and I didn't even use GRUB! What I've tried to do is describe the easy ways to boot LFS now. If you want the computer to default to Grub2 with all the selections on it, then there's more. I've found two interesting articles on the nuts and bolts of all of this. Managing EFI Bootloaders for Linux http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-bootloaders/installation.html gives a lot of good detail about EFI, elilo, Grub2 and the kernel. That document links to UEFI Booting
Re: [lfs-support] Configuring and Installing GRUB for {,U}EFI
Dan McGhee wrote: On 10/28/2013 10:55 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Dan McGhee wrote: When all this is successful, I could write the procedure up and post it. Then, if anyone wanted to, it could be put in the book somewhere. I could also write a hint if that were more practical. For now, just let us know your results. -- Bruce So far my results are just learning. I really haven't done anything yet, but some people may be interested in what I have found to date. This is long. Booting Linux in general, or LFS specifically *can be* as straightforward as it always has been. But if someone wants to make use of their UEFI--formerly EFI--firmware, then it is not so straightforward and can be down right complex. The first thing to note, in the current milieu, is that if you want to use *secure boot*--which is an add-on to and not synonymous with UEFI--you can install GRUB like you always have, but you will never see it boot anything because, if you're doing it in a pre-UEFI fashion, it's irrelevant to secure boot and won't be seen. Secure boot is an option in Linux right now if and only if you are using Ubuntu12.10, Fedora, OpenSuse--I don't know the version numbers--or if you have paid Microsoft $95 to let you write a key that you can use with your firmware and then figure out how to write a file that will check with the firmware to make sure all is OK and then check with the bootloader to make sure it's not vicious or malicious. (Sorry for the sarcasm). All of this means that you must turn off secure boot in your firmware setup. So far the only thing we have done in our preparation to boot LFS is turn off secure boot. Onward! The next option is to turn turn on legacy mode or CMS in the firmware. This is vendor specific so there are probably a number of things this is called. It just means going back to the way things used to be.--a bootloader in the first sector of the disk. In days of yore this was the way all computers shipped. We are all familiar with it--one bootloader, chain-linking and four primary partitions. Except if you have a GPT partition table. To insure backwards compatibility GPT partition tables now have an area at the beginning of the disk called the Protective MBR Layer. This is the place where GRUB would go on a GPT disk. This is also the place at which things start to muddy a bit. BIOS based firmware could handle only one bootloader, because it was limited to one physical spot on a fixed disk. UEFI overcomes that by using a Boot Manager to select the boot loader, and there can be, theoretically, any number of boot loaders, because these loaders now reside in a partition and not an actual physical spot on the disk. The following is the snipped results of my running parted -l /dev/sda Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 1049kB 420MB 419MB ntfs Basic data partition hidden, diag 2 420MB 693MB 273MB fat32 EFI system partition boot If someone has this partition, chances are they've been booting in EFI Mode. What I've read so far is that the EFI partition is usually the first partition of the disk, but it's not on mine. Another vendor thing I think. This partition contains two directories: boot and EFI. I've discovered that it's standard in Linux to mount it at /boot/efi--that's the way it is in my Ubuntu system and it's listed in /etc/fstab. Here are the results of ls /boot/efi/EFI using Ubuntu on my HP-Envy: Boot HP Microsoft ubuntu I've put this in here because the Boot Manager--whether written by HP or Microsoft I don't know--reads this directory and gives, as choices, the names of the directories--Boot comes across as Recovery for an option. You can access the Boot Manager by interrupting the boot process. On my machine it's done by holding the ESC key during boot and then selecting what I want. This is what I had to do to get to Ubuntu after I first installed it. The problem is in getting the Boot Manager to have a different default selection other than Microsoft. The solution to that is not trivial and I don't want to write about it until I study the process some more and, possibly, try it. But at this point let me show you the magic. Since version 3.3, the Linux kernel has had efi hooks. So--and I think it's this simple--you could create a directory in /boot/efi/EFi--let's call it LFS-7.4--and put the kernel in it. Then LFS-7.4 would appear as option in the EFI Boot Manager, you select it and Holy shiny boots, Batman, there's my new LFS system and I didn't even use GRUB! What I've tried to do is describe the easy ways to boot LFS now. If you want the computer to default to Grub2 with all the selections on it, then there's more. I've found two interesting articles on the nuts and bolts of all of this. Managing EFI Bootloaders for Linux http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-bootloaders/installation.html gives a lot of good detail about EFI, elilo, Grub2 and the kernel. That document links to UEFI
