On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 22:43:57 +0100,
Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
The upstart directory of 9.10 is /etc/init (whereas it was
/etc/event.d in 9.04 as it is in Fedora).
Note this has changed in rawhide and no auto conversion is done. So if you
have custom upstart scripts they will
I have forgotten whether the previous version of Ubuntu had an inittab
but the current one, 9.10, does not. You can nonetheless modify the
init levels at which init scripts are run (or not) and pass an init
level as a kernel parameter in grub or through init X.
Used to be able to, the latest
On 12/30/2009 04:43 PM, Tom H wrote:
To make an upstart job start at runlevels X and Y, you have to edit
the start line:
start on runlevel [XY]
Except in older versions (like 0.3 and 0.6 too) is there a way to
specify a dependency other than using a different run level ?
If you want for
To make an upstart job start at runlevels X and Y, you have to edit
the start line:
start on runlevel [XY]
Except in older versions (like 0.3 and 0.6 too) is there a way to
specify a dependency other than using a different run level ?
If you want for example to start your sendmail milters
Is it in the roadmap to move from GRUB Legacy to GRUB2?
Thanks,
e.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Eric Brunson brun...@brunson.com wrote:
Is it in the roadmap to move from GRUB Legacy to GRUB2?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Grub2
Ubuntu uses grub2 already. I'm sure it's got some
great new features, but for my purposes, it's a bit
less convenient
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:00:19 -0800
David L wrote:
If I understand it correctly,
with grub2, you have to run a command after editing
the configuration file to properly create another
configuration file.
I'm pretty sure that is due to ubuntu's implementation,
not necessarily due to grub2
On 12/29/2009 11:00 AM, David L wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Eric Brunsonbrun...@brunson.com wrote:
Is it in the roadmap to move from GRUB Legacy to GRUB2?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Grub2
Cool, I missed that. Thanks.
Ubuntu uses grub2 already. I'm
If I understand it correctly,
with grub2, you have to run a command after editing
the configuration file to properly create another
configuration file.
I'm pretty sure that is due to ubuntu's implementation,
not necessarily due to grub2 itself, but having had to
fool with ubuntu systems
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:56:00 +0100
Tom H wrote:
Debian, Fedora, and Ubuntu have implemented grub2 in the same way -
which must have come from the upstream devs.
How annoying. If grub itself can parse the grub.cfg file, I don't
know why update tools couldn't also parse it and do intelligent
Ubuntu uses grub2 already. I'm sure it's got some
great new features, but for my purposes, it's a bit
less convenient. I often edit my grub.conf one
one partition when I'm booted to another partition
(I use chainloading a lot). If I understand it correctly,
with grub2, you have to run
Debian, Fedora, and Ubuntu have implemented grub2 in the same way -
which must have come from the upstream devs.
How annoying. If grub itself can parse the grub.cfg file, I don't
know why update tools couldn't also parse it and do intelligent
merges, preserving kernel options, etc. As I
On 12/29/2009 09:22 AM, Eric Brunson wrote:
Is it in the roadmap to move from GRUB Legacy to GRUB2?
Thanks,
e.
yum info grub2
yum install grub2
HTH
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:46:17 +0100
Tom H wrote:
I have forgotten whether the previous version of Ubuntu had an inittab
but the current one, 9.10, does not. You can nonetheless modify the
init levels at which init scripts are run (or not) and pass an init
level as a kernel parameter in grub or
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:15:13 -0500, Gene wrote:
On Monday 14 December 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:29:21 -0500, Gene wrote:
Your F10 grub2 is broken beyond repair also, and I needed it to work so I
could try some other distro's that do use grub2 to boot with.
You
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:16:08 -0500, Gene wrote:
On Monday 14 December 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:04:29 -0500, Gene wrote:
and can not deal
with chainloading w/ grub.
That I got figured out, what I was trying to chainload was an ext4, and
old grub just throws
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:21:31 -0500, Gene wrote:
The GRUB manual: info grub
But a pinfo grub has a lot of blank entries.
Why are you overly brief when you could be a bit more verbose? Which
platform? Which terminal/console? Which package release of pinfo?
Compared with info grub (or other
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:16:38 +, Sam wrote:
I don't speak for any kind of majority, but my contribution to
making Fedora is pretty much zilch. I file the occasional bug, I
help out other users where I can, but I'm not currently a Fedora
Developer or Fedora Packager.
Problem reports _are_
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:42:57 -0500, Gene wrote:
On Monday 14 December 2009, Sam Sharpe wrote:
Actually I quite like most of Gene's output - he's cranky and he likes
guns - what's not to like?
;-) Thanks. I got the cranky part legit, I've earned it at 75. I've been
keeping a tv
On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:15:13 -0500, Gene wrote:
On Monday 14 December 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:29:21 -0500, Gene wrote:
Your F10 grub2 is broken beyond repair also, and I needed it to work
so I could try some
the grub2 switch stanza that names
core.img as the kernel to boot.
Then, because the mint 8 version of grub-mkconfig is the only one that
actually works to scan all drives and find all installs, I am copying the
mint 8 version of grub.cfg to my /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, after fixing the one
mistake
.
I have grub-1.97 (Mint 8 64 bit) in the mbr of /dev/sdb.
I have grub-0.97 (Mandriva 2009.1 64 bit) in the mbr of /dev/sdd.
What would be the exact stanza in the F10 grub.conf to switch directly to the
Mint 8 boot screen without involving the grub2 rpm or any of its utilities at
all
On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:21:31 -0500, Gene wrote:
The GRUB manual: info grub
But a pinfo grub has a lot of blank entries.
I may have miss-typed, and meant a pinfo grub2 has lots of blank entries. But
there is not an info file with the grub2
to switch directly to
the Mint 8 boot screen without involving the grub2 rpm or any of its
utilities at all?
title My Mint 8 installation
rootnoverify (hd1)
makeactive
chainloader +1
Haven't tested it of course, as I don't have the same setup, but it should
work.
HTH, :-)
Marko
--
fedora-list
On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:42:57 -0500, Gene wrote:
On Monday 14 December 2009, Sam Sharpe wrote:
Actually I quite like most of Gene's output - he's cranky and he likes
guns - what's not to like?
;-) Thanks. I got the cranky part legit, I've
the grub2 rpm or any of its
utilities at all?
Assuming that at boot-time your F10 GRUB maps /dev/sdb to 'hd1':
title Mint 8
rootnoverify (hd1)
chainloader +1
[And if you ever feel like installing a dist's boot loader not into the
MBR but into the boot sector of a partition, substitute
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:57:29 -0500, Gene wrote:
On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:21:31 -0500, Gene wrote:
The GRUB manual: info grub
But a pinfo grub has a lot of blank entries.
I may have miss-typed, and meant a pinfo grub2 has lots of blank
miss-typed, and meant a pinfo grub2 has lots of blank entries.
F10's grub2 package does not include any info manual at all.
Fedora's RPM package grub2 does not contain any scriptlets that
would mess with other info manuals.
$ rpm -q grub2
grub2-1.98-0.3.20080827svn.fc10.i386
$ rpm -qld grub2|grep
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:04:19 -0500, Gene wrote:
I did have F12 installed, 64 bit version, but it was (pick a number * 10)
slower than the 32 bit F10 install.
Based on what measurements? What tools did you use to determine that it
was slower?
click on a window close button, pick up
for a week,
and generally so were the posts bitching about the grub2 rpm being supplied,
its broken in that it only searches the boot its booted from. The same grub2
autoconfig'er in the Mint 8 install gets it right, finding all the the
installed distros on the system but does make a couple
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:11:25 -0500,
Gene Heskett gene.hesk...@verizon.net wrote:
Your treatment of redhat/fedora users with over a decade of use has finally
reached the quitting point. You refuse to fix openssh, hoping that would
force me to install F12, and when I do and have
On 12/14/2009 10:30 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:11:25 -0500,
Gene Heskettgene.hesk...@verizon.net wrote:
Your treatment of redhat/fedora users with over a decade of use has finally
reached the quitting point. You refuse to fix openssh, hoping that would
force me
threads. Is it in any of those replies?
GRUB chainload config problems. Then the F10 grub2 bitching thread.
Side-note about your Booting sparkly new F12 install, error 13 from
grub. thread. The partitioning details are confusing, contradictory,
inaccurate and incomplete. First impression is that you
on downers. And my messages were ignored for the most part.
Your F10 grub2 is broken beyond repair also, and I needed it to work so I
could try some other distro's that do use grub2 to boot with.
The Mint 8 version of grub-mkconfig almost gets it right, foo=bar'ing some
(hdx,x) statements
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Your treatment of redhat/fedora users with over a decade of use has
finally
reached the quitting point. You refuse to fix openssh, hoping that
would
force me to install F12, and when I do and have problems, its go
pound sand.
performance problems.
A couple of replies to other threads. Is it in any of those replies?
GRUB chainload config problems. Then the F10 grub2 bitching thread.
Side-note about your Booting sparkly new F12 install, error 13 from
grub. thread. The partitioning details are confusing, contradictory
On Monday 14 December 2009, Craig White wrote:
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Your treatment of redhat/fedora users with over a decade of use has
finally
reached the quitting point. You refuse to fix openssh, hoping that
would
force me to install F12, and
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 15:04 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Monday 14 December 2009, Craig White wrote:
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Your treatment of redhat/fedora users with over a decade of use has
finally
reached the quitting point. You refuse to fix
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:29:21 -0500, Gene wrote:
Your F10 grub2 is broken beyond repair also, and I needed it to work so I
could try some other distro's that do use grub2 to boot with.
You couldn't chainload those other dists with legacy GRUB?
[Probably a rhetorical question, because
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:04:29 -0500, Gene wrote:
and can not deal
with chainloading w/ grub.
That I got figured out, what I was trying to chainload was an ext4, and old
grub just throws up its hands.
Let me guess (taking into account the grub config mess in a recent
thread), you did not
as to ask?
The GRUB manual: info grub
And it isn't rude to ask.
and generally so were the posts bitching about the grub2 rpm being
supplied, its broken in that it only searches the boot its booted from.
What is the ticket number in bugzilla?
You can generate it, but I now have doubts
On 12/14/2009 11:11 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
I wish it was, but my posts to this list about it were ignored for a week,
and generally so were the posts bitching about the grub2 rpm being supplied,
its broken in that it only searches the boot its booted from. The same grub2
autoconfig'er
On Monday 14 December 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:29:21 -0500, Gene wrote:
Your F10 grub2 is broken beyond repair also, and I needed it to work so I
could try some other distro's that do use grub2 to boot with.
You couldn't chainload those other dists with legacy GRUB
On Monday 14 December 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:04:29 -0500, Gene wrote:
and can not deal
with chainloading w/ grub.
That I got figured out, what I was trying to chainload was an ext4, and
old grub just throws up its hands.
Let me guess (taking into account the
in the manual.
It is? In what manual may I be so rude as to ask?
The GRUB manual: info grub
And it isn't rude to ask.
But a pinfo grub has a lot of blank entries.
and generally so were the posts bitching about the grub2 rpm being
supplied, its broken in that it only searches the boot its booted
release in Fedora 10, because if the primary [legacy] GRUB still does its
job, there is not much incentive to try the development version before it
will become the distribution's primary choice, too.
The boot loader got involved because the *buntu derivatives are all using
grub2 now, and I don't care
Your F10 grub2 is broken beyond repair also, and I needed it to work so I
could try some other distro's that do use grub2 to boot with.
You couldn't chainload those other dists with legacy GRUB?
Not if the boot partition is on an ext4 filesystem. I experimented with it
pointed at an ext3
2009/12/14 Mikkel mik...@infinity-ltd.com:
On 12/14/2009 11:11 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
Your treatment of redhat/fedora users with over a decade of use has finally
reached the quitting point. You refuse to fix openssh, hoping that would
force me to install F12, and when I do and have
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 00:16 +, Sam Sharpe wrote:
2009/12/14 Mikkel mik...@infinity-ltd.com:
On 12/14/2009 11:11 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
Your treatment of redhat/fedora users with over a decade of use has
finally
reached the quitting point. You refuse to fix openssh, hoping that
On Monday 14 December 2009, Tom H wrote:
[...]
I suspect that Ubuntu 9.10 has defaulted to grub2 possibly prematurely
because it wants to iron out the bugs before it releases its next LTS
version in April.
Sure sounds like a plan to me.
Using a year-old release of grub2 is courageous at best
On Monday 14 December 2009, Tom H wrote:
Your F10 grub2 is broken beyond repair also, and I needed it to work so
I could try some other distro's that do use grub2 to boot with.
You couldn't chainload those other dists with legacy GRUB?
Not if the boot partition is on an ext4 filesystem. I
On Monday 14 December 2009, Sam Sharpe wrote:
2009/12/14 Mikkel mik...@infinity-ltd.com:
On 12/14/2009 11:11 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
Your treatment of redhat/fedora users with over a decade of use has
finally reached the quitting point. You refuse to fix openssh, hoping
that would force me to
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:32:28 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:04:29 -0500, Gene wrote:
and can not deal
with chainloading w/ grub.
That I got figured out, what I was trying to chainload was an ext4,
and old grub just throws up its hands.
Let me guess (taking
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:13:25 -0500, Gene wrote:
I did have F12 installed, 64 bit version, but it was (pick a number * 10)
slower than the 32 bit F10 install.
Based on what measurements? What tools did you use to determine that it
was slower?
The only reason I loaded F12 in the first place
it
will become the distribution's primary choice, too.
The boot loader got involved because the *buntu derivatives are all using
grub2 now, and I don't care what the call it update-grub or grub-
mkconfig, its broken, the whole design premise of an automatic grub
configuration tool that they started
This should be bugzilla'd.
I made a printout of blkid, then compared it to the /boott/grub2/grub.cfg it
generated. I now see why I can't boot anything but fedora 10.
Attached is blkid.txt, note that all drives appear to be found and properly
UUID'd.
Attached also is the /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 13:08:32 -0500,
Gene Heskett gene.hesk...@verizon.net wrote:
So the Mint8 installers update-grub comes a heck of a lot closer to getting
it right than the fedora grub2 version. Can this be fixed asap, before the
plug on F10 is completely pulled?
The deadline
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:30:54 -0600, Bruno wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 13:08:32 -0500,
Gene Heskett wrote:
So the Mint8 installers update-grub comes a heck of a lot closer to getting
it right than the fedora grub2 version. Can this be fixed asap, before the
plug on F10
On Saturday 12 December 2009, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:30:54 -0600, Bruno wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 13:08:32 -0500,
Gene Heskett wrote:
So the Mint8 installers update-grub comes a heck of a lot closer to
getting it right than the fedora grub2 version. Can
says Grub needs to be 1.95 or higher to boot from a /boot on an
lvm. Does that mean Fedora is yet to include that capability?
The package is called grub2. :)
And the latest release 1.97xxx.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman
in the F12 repos, I saw the grub version is 0.97. Whereas the
link says Grub needs to be 1.95 or higher to boot from a /boot on an
lvm. Does that mean Fedora is yet to include that capability?
The package is called grub2. :)
And the latest release 1.97xxx.
That explains it! I was looking
On 12/08/2009 07:45 AM, Tom H wrote:
hat you had asked for this info.
This is from the Grub 2 wiki:
http://grub.enbug.org/LVMandRAID
Thank you Tom, its much appreciated, but you forgot that you have
already posted that. :)
You're welcome. By the end of this week I will have done four
From Suvayu Ali (in the Getting rid of /boot thread)
Could you please point me to the documentation for this? I would
really like to read up more and understand what limitations/advantages
I might have as I have been waiting for this to be included since F10.
Sorry Suvayu. Just remembered that
Hi Tom,
2009/12/7 Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com
From Suvayu Ali (in the Getting rid of /boot thread)
Could you please point me to the documentation for this? I would
really like to read up more and understand what limitations/advantages
I might have as I have been waiting for this to be
- why Grub2?
Because
Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in
free and open source software. Fedora is always free for anyone to use,
modify, and distribute. It is built by people across the globe who work
together as a community: the Fedora Project. The Fedora
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:02:09 -0600
From: King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: GRUB2 In Fedora
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
Message-ID:
8278b1b0911081202m5895456cif4b94fce66212...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 13:12:18 +0800,
Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks a lot, every helper.
I am just so surprising that why grub2 in Fedora is 1.98 however the
official version is 1.97. In fact grub2 in Fedora is older that official
release. Why not follow the official
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 09.11.2009 16:29, schrieb Bruno Wolff III:
It is a prerelease version. The release string starting with '0' is a tip
off that this is the case.
The release of grub on Fedora is 9.97 nowaday. As link grub2, this is
a prerelease.
Best Regards
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 13:12:18 +0800,
Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks a lot, every helper.
I am just so surprising that why grub2 in Fedora is 1.98 however the
official version is 1.97. In fact grub2 in Fedora is older that official
release. Why not follow the official
.
And yet grub2 still doesn't have all the things we need it to have, that
is in our grub, and seem to still not want our stuff yet. Also not a
great place to be as a downstream.
why don't we make it official that we're the new-old-grub upstream and
give it a shiny new name and a website
. This isn't
a nice place to be in as a downstream.
And yet grub2 still doesn't have all the things we need it to have, that
is in our grub, and seem to still not want our stuff yet. Also not a
great place to be as a downstream.
why don't we make it official that we're the new-old-grub upstream
have a public git repo that consists of grub1 + our changes.
Our grub package consists of the last upstream grub1 source + all our
patches from our git repo on top of it. I think Peter has been working
with other distros that are still on grub1.
Wouldn't it be easier to work with GRUB2 folks
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 14:34 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to work with GRUB2 folks to add the missing
features we need?
In theory yes, that's how it's supposed to go. In practice, with grub
Thanks a lot, every helper.
I am just so surprising that why grub2 in Fedora is 1.98 however the
official version is 1.97. In fact grub2 in Fedora is older that official
release. Why not follow the official release version? Does Fedora hope that
grub2 replaces grub when GNU release grub2-1.98?
I
2009/11/3 Liang Suilong liangsuil...@gmail.com:
Some Linux distros has migrated from grub-0.97 to grub2-1.97. Grub2 provides
more useful features to users. And it is more easy to add a new file system
support. But I can not see Fedora has any plan for GRUB2. I read a feature
page on Fedora
Some Linux distros has migrated from grub-0.97 to grub2-1.97. Grub2 provides
more useful features to users. And it is more easy to add a new file system
support. But I can not see Fedora has any plan for GRUB2. I read a feature
page on Fedora wiki. There is no progress on grub2.
Now Fedora
Hmm... I was installing a bunch of packages from the
repository for testing purposes, and I ended up with
a Grub2 line entry, and thought it strange:
title GNU GRUB 2, (1.98)
kernel /grub2/core.img
title Fedora (2.6.29.6-217.2.16.fc11.i586)
root (hd0,8)
kernel /vmlinuz
On 09/07/2009 02:28 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
Hmm... I was installing a bunch of packages from the
repository for testing purposes, and I ended up with
a Grub2 line entry, and thought it strange:
title GNU GRUB 2, (1.98)
kernel /grub2/core.img
title Fedora (2.6.29.6-217.2.16
On 09/07/09 11:33, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
On 09/07/2009 02:28 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
Hmm... I was installing a bunch of packages from the
repository for testing purposes, and I ended up with
a Grub2 line entry, and thought it strange:
title GNU GRUB 2, (1.98)
kernel
79 matches
Mail list logo
