Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
Le 2015-08-28 07:55, Tom H a écrit : On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Michel Catudal wrote: Le 2015-08-27 15:18, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : Who are you to tell them what they should work on? They're acting like FOSS developers, many of whom work for free or underpaid so they work on whatever the fuck they want. The problem with FOSS is that we have too many idiots that like to rant about what they don't like instead of doing something about it. If all those energies went to improving the software FOSS would be so much better. No one is asking them to do that. As mentioned before it works with some override. A solution to the problem would be to remove the arrogance toward people who want grub on a partition and remove the part in the installer that refuses to install it unless you give it an override. If I say write the bootloader on the partition, that should work as requested, they can still write a comment that they do not like us doing it but should not keep us from doing it. If it doesn't work we will see it soon enough. So you want the Gentoo grub2 maintainer to patch grub2 to remove the warning about partitions and the need for "--force" so that you can use "grub2-install /dev/sda1"? Isn't simpleer and more efficient for you to use "--force"?! By having this messages it makes the maintainers of some distributions assume that it is impossible and will do everything in their power to not allow you to install on the partition. That is the old Microsoft way of protecting the user against himself. That is fine for morons but people who know what they are doing should be allowed to wacked their system when they do stupid thing. You probably know a few Linux distributions targeted to people who shouldn't be allowed anywere near a computer. So if we decide to install one of those to help one of those users we have some problem. Once I had that it got remove and I had to answer to the user, sorry I cannot allow this crappy linux distribution on my computer. Michel -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
> > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:25:01 PM Michel Catudal wrote: > > > This is nonsense. I have never had a case where it would not boot when I > > have grub correctly installed on the partition. This hasn't happened to you so it obviously means it isn't possible... On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Michel Catudal wrote: > Le 2015-08-27 23:36, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : > > Install grub to a partition and do something like this: > > > > su > > cd > > mv /boot/grub grub > > cp -r grub /boot > > rm -r grub > > > What is your point? same if I do that with grub1, it was even more fun with > windows 98 by deleting win.ini or renaming it "win .ini" > With grub on the partition my bootloader doesn't get wacked and I can restore > the OS if I do a stupid thing like this. > You seem to be trying really hard to _not_ get what people are saying to you. The above commands will *not* change anything visibly - they are akin to backing up your grub configuration and later restoring. It ends up at the same location on the filesystem, but this doesn't mean it is at the same location on the block device. That's the problem with installing grub to a partition: all it really does is store (in the PBR) a list of blocks where the grub core.img is located without caring about the filesystem structure on top. This is a _fragile_ set-up. So there. There are technical reasons why this is not a supported setup. No one has removed this option from grub2, so all your complaints about dictatorship are invalid.
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Michel Catudal wrote: > Le 2015-08-27 23:36, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : >> >> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:25:01 PM Michel Catudal wrote: >>> >>> This is nonsense. I have never had a case where it would not boot when I >> >> have grub correctly installed on the partition. >> >> Install grub to a partition and do something like this: >> >> su >> cd >> mv /boot/grub grub >> cp -r grub /boot >> rm -r grub >> > What is your point? same if I do that with grub1, it was even more fun with > windows 98 by deleting win.ini or renaming it "win .ini" > With grub on the partition my bootloader doesn't get wacked and I can > restore the OS if I do a stupid thing like this. I think you missed his point. If you do those commands your system will actually reboot just fine most likely. Today. It might reboot tomorrow too. A few weeks from now it probably won't. Copying and deleting the grub stages doesn't bother grub one bit. On the other hand, overwritting those no-longer-allocated blocks with other data will. And that is why you need to use --force to make grub behave in this manner. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Aug 27, 2015 6:50 PM, wrote: > > > > > >It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is > >simply not supported. > > When a needed functionality is no longer working it is a bug. To have grub installing itself on the MBR when the users doesn't it to is unacceptable because it wipes out the part that loads the bootloader so booting to other operating systems (OS/2, PC Dos, Ecomstation, etc) is no longer possible with a nice bootloader, we are then stuck with grub which is a pain in the ass to setup. > Or simply an unsupported / deprecated feature. > I want to use grub only for the current Linux that I boot on. So try to do it, or fork it and fix it yourself? The freedom is there. > > The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control of the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use to boot Operating systems on my computer? I think you have this backwards. Who are you to demand others make software behave the way you want? The only person telling you what you can use to boot your machine is your own requirements. Since you are so sure what the vision of this software should be, why don't you whip up a lull request with the code to do what you want it to do? You hold the power. Do something with it. > > Michel > >
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
Le 2015-08-27 23:36, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : On Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:25:01 PM Michel Catudal wrote: This is nonsense. I have never had a case where it would not boot when I have grub correctly installed on the partition. Install grub to a partition and do something like this: su cd mv /boot/grub grub cp -r grub /boot rm -r grub What is your point? same if I do that with grub1, it was even more fun with windows 98 by deleting win.ini or renaming it "win .ini" With grub on the partition my bootloader doesn't get wacked and I can restore the OS if I do a stupid thing like this. -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Michel Catudal wrote: > Le 2015-08-27 15:18, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : >> >> Who are you to tell them what they should work on? They're acting like >> FOSS developers, many of whom work for free or underpaid so they work on >> whatever the fuck they want. The problem with FOSS is that we have too many >> idiots that like to rant about what they don't like instead of doing >> something about it. If all those energies went to improving the software >> FOSS would be so much better. > > No one is asking them to do that. As mentioned before it works with some > override. A solution to the problem would be to remove the arrogance toward > people who want grub on a partition and remove the part in the installer > that refuses to install it unless you give it an override. If I say write > the bootloader on the partition, that should work as requested, they can > still write a comment that they do not like us doing it but should not keep > us from doing it. If it doesn't work we will see it soon enough. So you want the Gentoo grub2 maintainer to patch grub2 to remove the warning about partitions and the need for "--force" so that you can use "grub2-install /dev/sda1"? Isn't simpleer and more efficient for you to use "--force"?!
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Michel Catudal wrote: > > The language toward us is not much nicer. There is some arrogance from the > other side of the issue. > We've been fighting this for years. It is a lie to say that it cannot > install on a partition. What makes it not install is the installer that > refuses to install it. > One one install I was able to do this (with Fedora) by passing an argument > to force it to install on the partition. > > As another gentoo user says so well, it is them wanting to be the only > bootloader, so Microsoft. > > We want to be free from Microsoft, not just replace a dictator with another > one. > > You may love it but there are many of us who hate it with a passion. > > The bottom line is that we have to use grub 1 or lilo until grub 2 is fixed > or forked by someone who is interested to fix it. Whether it's a lie or not, the fact is that it isn't something that the grub developers want to deal with. The ext4 developer called the grub2 developers paranoid and emotionally insecure a few years ago when this was brought to him but no one can force them to re-add to grub2 what they consider a misfeature of grub1.
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Tom H wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote: >> On Thursday 27 August 2015 08:49:13 Mike Gilbert wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal I've had serious problems in the past getting [grub2] to install on a partition and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is unacceptable. >>> >>> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is >>> simply not supported. >> >> So now grub2 is insisting on being the only boot manager present. That >> doesn't >> sound like the Linux way to me. > > Linux is horrendously restrictive; you can only boot from one kernel at a > time! > I get the joke but: http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/ http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Main_Page -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:50 PM, wrote: > > The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like > Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control of > the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use to boot > Operating systems on my computer? The grub developers may or may not be dictators but the reason that they don't want grub2 installed in a pbr is that they don't want to have to waste their time dealing with the bugs that'll come fro doing so. The whole point of using Linux is to be using FOSS not that you necessarily have complete control. There are fewer restriction in Gentoo than in binary distros but you can't do anything, or people wouldn't be posting their emerge output on a regular basis because of this or that blocker.
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Thursday 27 August 2015 08:49:13 Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal >>> >>> I've had serious problems in the past getting [grub2] to install on a >>> partition and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the >>> MBR which is unacceptable. >> >> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is >> simply not supported. > > So now grub2 is insisting on being the only boot manager present. That doesn't > sound like the Linux way to me. Linux is horrendously restrictive; you can only boot from one kernel at a time!
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 6:27:14 PM Michel Catudal wrote: >> >> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition >> and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is >> unacceptable. > > Yes and no, at least it can be a pain. I remember running into that and got it > to work after several hours, unfortunately I forgot how. It may have been that > it writes to both the mbr and the partition so you can restore the old mbr and > still boot the partition. It also treats removable media and HDs different. > It's hard to remember because I tried so many things. You have to use "--force" but the grub developers consider using it unreliable because you then have to make use of block lists.
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 22:03:44 -0400, Michel Catudal wrote: > Commenting on dictatorial behavior by some developper is not acting > like a child, it is just defending a point. All software is dictatorial, or at least oligarchic. code talks, those that write it get to say what goes in it, those that simply take get no say. Unless the developers install the software on your machine against your will, you always have a choice, so stop ranting because someone isn't creating just what you want when they have no reason to. -- Neil Bothwick She's fine, upstanding, and wonderful laying down. pgp7nABGZuwd7.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:25:01 PM Michel Catudal wrote: > This is nonsense. I have never had a case where it would not boot when I have grub correctly installed on the partition. Install grub to a partition and do something like this: su cd mv /boot/grub grub cp -r grub /boot rm -r grub At this point your system is broken, but it will still boot. A few days to a few years from now your system stops booting, what do YOU do now? You go off ranting and name calling the devs. Now, assume that the developers took your advise and let it install without warning, what does a sane person do? I would probably reinstall grub and forever wonder wtf went wrong. Thankfully the developers looked out for me and showed me a warning and forced me to pay attention to it by requiring the --force option, so when my system breaks I'll remember that and know what went wrong (I'll probably forget but at least they tried). There are other ways to break it, like resizing partitions and I believe this is also a problem with grub1. If you modify it to install to a partition cleanly without blocklists (which is definitely possible) I doubt that they'll reject your changes. Plenty of people are willing to complain but nobody's willing to do the work. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Michel Catudal wrote: > Le 2015-08-27 21:50, Rich Freeman a écrit : >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Michel Catudal >> wrote: >>> >>> You missed the point, I do not want some installation treating me like a >>> child by denying an install to protect me against myself. If I mess up my >>> system it is nobody's business but mine. >>> >> Well, then quit acting like a child and patch it to work the way you >> want it to work. :) >> > > Right now grub1 works for me. I have no plan to fork grub2 as long as grub1 > works. When I can no longer use grub1 I will have to look at that option. > Nobody said you weren't allowed to use grub1. Also, grub1 will work until the end of time, just like OS/2 or MS-DOS or VMS - it isn't like software has an expiration date. > Commenting on dictatorial behavior by some developper is not acting like a > child, it is just defending a point. Somebody wrote some software for free that doesn't work the way you want it to. How is writing free software dictatorial? Is anybody who writes software and does not charge for it ethically bound to write it to somebody else's specifications? Even if you buy into "the customer is always right" you aren't even their customer. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
Le 2015-08-27 21:50, Rich Freeman a écrit : On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Michel Catudal wrote: You missed the point, I do not want some installation treating me like a child by denying an install to protect me against myself. If I mess up my system it is nobody's business but mine. Well, then quit acting like a child and patch it to work the way you want it to work. :) Right now grub1 works for me. I have no plan to fork grub2 as long as grub1 works. When I can no longer use grub1 I will have to look at that option. Commenting on dictatorial behavior by some developper is not acting like a child, it is just defending a point. -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Michel Catudal wrote: > > You missed the point, I do not want some installation treating me like a > child by denying an install to protect me against myself. If I mess up my > system it is nobody's business but mine. > Well, then quit acting like a child and patch it to work the way you want it to work. :) -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
Le 2015-08-27 20:31, Jeremi Piotrowski a écrit : On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Michel Catudal wrote: No one is asking them to do that. As mentioned before it works with some override. A solution to the problem would be to remove the arrogance toward people who want grub on a partition and remove the part in the installer that refuses to install it unless you give it an override. To me they are dealing with this in the right way. As the developers they have to decide what setups they want to support as the spectrum is huge and manpower is limited. There are problems with installing grub to a partition, read [1]. Therefore it is not supported and not allowed by default, because if they don't do this people: 1. _will_ try installing to a partition 2. _will_ render their system unbootable 3. _will_ come running for help and complaining 4. _will_ get angry when you tell them `I told you so' Seems perfectly legit to want to spare yourself this trouble. This is nonsense. I have never had a case where it would not boot when I have grub correctly installed on the partition. By having each distribution with its own bootloader they do not mess things up for the other. I keep 4 different linux distributions on my computer plus Ecomstation. If in one experiment I goof on one distribution I have some others to help me recover. If one of the distributions that messes up is in control of the boot loader I am screwed. I do not want any operating system in charge of the bootloader, isn't that clear enough? If grub ever messes up the partition that will be because they added some troyan functions to piss off people who disagree with their ownership of the whole computer. If I say write the bootloader on the partition, that should work as requested, they can still write a comment that they do not like us doing it but should not keep us from doing it. If it doesn't work we will see it soon enough. I don't get you - that _is_ exactly what they are doing. You say 'write bootloader to partition' by adding the force flag and grub2 complains but does what it is told. [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1229097#p1229097 You missed the point, I do not want some installation treating me like a child by denying an install to protect me against myself. If I mess up my system it is nobody's business but mine. -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Michel Catudal wrote: > No one is asking them to do that. As mentioned before it works with some > override. A solution to the problem would be to remove the arrogance toward > people who want grub on a partition and remove the part in the installer that > refuses to install it unless you give it an override. To me they are dealing with this in the right way. As the developers they have to decide what setups they want to support as the spectrum is huge and manpower is limited. There are problems with installing grub to a partition, read [1]. Therefore it is not supported and not allowed by default, because if they don't do this people: 1. _will_ try installing to a partition 2. _will_ render their system unbootable 3. _will_ come running for help and complaining 4. _will_ get angry when you tell them `I told you so' Seems perfectly legit to want to spare yourself this trouble. > If I say write the > bootloader on the partition, that should work as requested, they can still > write a comment that they do not like us doing it but should not keep us from > doing it. If it doesn't work we will see it soon enough. > I don't get you - that _is_ exactly what they are doing. You say 'write bootloader to partition' by adding the force flag and grub2 complains but does what it is told. [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1229097#p1229097
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:17:46 -0400, Michel Catudal wrote: > I don't care for the automatic ways of grub2, I prefer to edit the boot > file by hand and have a nice command line screen. As you can with GRUB2. grub-mkconfig is a convenience, mainly for providers of binary distros so they can update the boot menu when installing a new kernel package. The info pages document the config file and how to edit it manually. > With grub1 you just > tell it what type of display you want. As you do with GRUB2, just read the docs. -- Neil Bothwick WINDOWS: Will Install Needless Data On Whole System pgpPg8gGU0aC3.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
Le 2015-08-27 15:18, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : Who are you to tell them what they should work on? They're acting like FOSS developers, many of whom work for free or underpaid so they work on whatever the fuck they want. The problem with FOSS is that we have too many idiots that like to rant about what they don't like instead of doing something about it. If all those energies went to improving the software FOSS would be so much better. No one is asking them to do that. As mentioned before it works with some override. A solution to the problem would be to remove the arrogance toward people who want grub on a partition and remove the part in the installer that refuses to install it unless you give it an override. If I say write the bootloader on the partition, that should work as requested, they can still write a comment that they do not like us doing it but should not keep us from doing it. If it doesn't work we will see it soon enough. Michel -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
Le 2015-08-27 14:23, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : I just got it to work with these steps: 1. Mount the partition to /mnt/usb 2. Run: #grub2-install --directory /usr/lib/grub/i386-pc --boot- directory=/mnt/usb/boot --force /dev/sdb2 Installing for i386-pc platform. grub2-install: warning: File system `ext2' doesn't support embedding. grub2-install: warning: Embedding is not possible. GRUB can only be installed in this setup by using blocklists. However, blocklists are UNRELIABLE and their use is discouraged.. Installation finished. No error reported. 3. Set the partition as active with fdisk. And it booted. To verify that it didn't overwrite the mbr I overwrote it with syslinux's mbr as follows: sudo dd conv=notrunc bs=440 count=1 if=/usr/share/syslinux/mbr.bin of=/dev/sdb Still boots! Thanks for the info. I will use this next time. How do you tell it to use some other display beside display for the blind? I don't care for the automatic ways of grub2, I prefer to edit the boot file by hand and have a nice command line screen. With grub1 you just tell it what type of display you want. -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
Le 2015-08-27 13:16, Alan Mackenzie a écrit : On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:50:15PM +, mcatu...@comcast.net wrote: The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control of the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use to boot Operating systems on my computer? Just to point out that the unparliamentary language is not going to contribute towards any solution. For all we know, some of the relevant maintainers might be Gentoo users subscribed to this list, and slagging them off isn't helpful. The language toward us is not much nicer. There is some arrogance from the other side of the issue. We've been fighting this for years. It is a lie to say that it cannot install on a partition. What makes it not install is the installer that refuses to install it. One one install I was able to do this (with Fedora) by passing an argument to force it to install on the partition. As another gentoo user says so well, it is them wanting to be the only bootloader, so Microsoft. We want to be free from Microsoft, not just replace a dictator with another one. You may love it but there are many of us who hate it with a passion. The bottom line is that we have to use grub 1 or lilo until grub 2 is fixed or forked by someone who is interested to fix it. -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 4:50:15 PM mcatu...@comcast.net wrote: > The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control of the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use to boot Operating systems on my computer? Who are you to tell them what they should work on? They're acting like FOSS developers, many of whom work for free or underpaid so they work on whatever the fuck they want. The problem with FOSS is that we have too many idiots that like to rant about what they don't like instead of doing something about it. If all those energies went to improving the software FOSS would be so much better. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 19:31:34 Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:23:56 PM Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:49:13 AM Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal > > > > wrote: > > > > Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : > > > >> This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some > > extent > > > > >> with > > > >> legacy grub: > > > >> > > > >> 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use > > grub- > > > > >> static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures. > > > >> 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages > > model > > > > >> it > > > >> uses a core image and a bunch of modules. > > > >> 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks. > > > >> 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices. > > > >> 5. Graphics and theming support. > > > >> 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) > > > >> is scriptable > > > >> using a shell-like script language. > > > >> 7. Password support for each entry. > > > > > > > > I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a > > partition > > > > > and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR > > > > which > > > > is > > > > > > unacceptable. > > > > > > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is > > > simply not supported. > > > > I just got it to work with these steps: > > > > 1. Mount the partition to /mnt/usb > > 2. Run: > > > > #grub2-install --directory /usr/lib/grub/i386-pc --boot- > > directory=/mnt/usb/boot --force /dev/sdb2 > > Installing for i386-pc platform. > > grub2-install: warning: File system `ext2' doesn't support embedding. > > grub2-install: warning: Embedding is not possible. GRUB can only be > > installed > > > in this setup by using blocklists. However, blocklists are UNRELIABLE > > and their use is discouraged.. > > Installation finished. No error reported. > > > > 3. Set the partition as active with fdisk. > > > > And it booted. To verify that it didn't overwrite the mbr I overwrote it > > with > > > syslinux's mbr as follows: > > > > sudo dd conv=notrunc bs=440 count=1 if=/usr/share/syslinux/mbr.bin > > of=/dev/sdb > > > Still boots! > > It is a good idea to make all grub2 files in /boot immutable to avoid > problems. You beat me to it. Yes GRUB2 can be installed on a partition instead of the MBR and yes it complains about it. However, it works regardless. I have done it a couple of times so far, just as you describe above. In my case I chainload GRUB2 with NTLDR or modern equivalent and this is how I know that the MBR was not being overwritten by it. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:23:56 PM Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:49:13 AM Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal > wrote: > > > Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : > > > > > >> This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some extent > > >> with > > >> legacy grub: > > >> > > >> 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use grub- > > >> static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures. > > >> 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages model > > >> it > > >> uses a core image and a bunch of modules. > > >> 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks. > > >> 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices. > > >> 5. Graphics and theming support. > > >> 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is > > >> scriptable > > >> using a shell-like script language. > > >> 7. Password support for each entry. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition > > > and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which > is > > > unacceptable. > > > > > > > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is > > simply not supported. > > > > I just got it to work with these steps: > > 1. Mount the partition to /mnt/usb > 2. Run: > > #grub2-install --directory /usr/lib/grub/i386-pc --boot- > directory=/mnt/usb/boot --force /dev/sdb2 > Installing for i386-pc platform. > grub2-install: warning: File system `ext2' doesn't support embedding. > grub2-install: warning: Embedding is not possible. GRUB can only be installed > in this setup by using blocklists. However, blocklists are UNRELIABLE and > their use is discouraged.. > Installation finished. No error reported. > > 3. Set the partition as active with fdisk. > > And it booted. To verify that it didn't overwrite the mbr I overwrote it with > syslinux's mbr as follows: > > sudo dd conv=notrunc bs=440 count=1 if=/usr/share/syslinux/mbr.bin of=/dev/sdb > > Still boots! It is a good idea to make all grub2 files in /boot immutable to avoid problems. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:49:13 AM Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal wrote: > > Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : > > > >> This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some extent > >> with > >> legacy grub: > >> > >> 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use grub- > >> static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures. > >> 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages model > >> it > >> uses a core image and a bunch of modules. > >> 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks. > >> 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices. > >> 5. Graphics and theming support. > >> 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is > >> scriptable > >> using a shell-like script language. > >> 7. Password support for each entry. > >> > >> > > > > I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition > > and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is > > unacceptable. > > > > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is > simply not supported. > I just got it to work with these steps: 1. Mount the partition to /mnt/usb 2. Run: #grub2-install --directory /usr/lib/grub/i386-pc --boot- directory=/mnt/usb/boot --force /dev/sdb2 Installing for i386-pc platform. grub2-install: warning: File system `ext2' doesn't support embedding. grub2-install: warning: Embedding is not possible. GRUB can only be installed in this setup by using blocklists. However, blocklists are UNRELIABLE and their use is discouraged.. Installation finished. No error reported. 3. Set the partition as active with fdisk. And it booted. To verify that it didn't overwrite the mbr I overwrote it with syslinux's mbr as follows: sudo dd conv=notrunc bs=440 count=1 if=/usr/share/syslinux/mbr.bin of=/dev/sdb Still boots! -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:50:15 + (UTC), mcatu...@comcast.net wrote: > The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like > Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control > of the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use > to boot Operating systems on my computer? No one is telling you to do anything. You choose which bootloader to install, if you don't like the choice you made there is only one person to blame. -- Neil Bothwick ASSISTANT MANAGER: Feminine form of the word manager (q.v.). pgpdYADONQGPL.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:50:15PM +, mcatu...@comcast.net wrote: > - Mail original - > >It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is > >simply not supported. > When a needed functionality is no longer working it is a bug. To have > grub installing itself on the MBR when the users doesn't it to is > unacceptable because it wipes out the part that loads the bootloader so > booting to other operating systems (OS/2, PC Dos, Ecomstation, etc) is > no longer possible with a nice bootloader, we are then stuck with grub > which is a pain in the ass to setup. > I want to use grub only for the current Linux that I boot on. > The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like > Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control > of the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use > to boot Operating systems on my computer? Just to point out that the unparliamentary language is not going to contribute towards any solution. For all we know, some of the relevant maintainers might be Gentoo users subscribed to this list, and slagging them off isn't helpful. There might well be good reasons for the restriction. Discovering what they are is more likely to point towards a positive resolution. > Michel -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
- Mail original - >It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is >simply not supported. When a needed functionality is no longer working it is a bug. To have grub installing itself on the MBR when the users doesn't it to is unacceptable because it wipes out the part that loads the bootloader so booting to other operating systems (OS/2, PC Dos, Ecomstation, etc) is no longer possible with a nice bootloader, we are then stuck with grub which is a pain in the ass to setup. I want to use grub only for the current Linux that I boot on. The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control of the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use to boot Operating systems on my computer? Michel
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Thursday 27 August 2015 08:49:13 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal > > I've had serious problems in the past getting [grub2] to install on a > > partition and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the > > MBR which is unacceptable. > > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is > simply not supported. So now grub2 is insisting on being the only boot manager present. That doesn't sound like the Linux way to me. -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal wrote: > Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : > >> This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some extent >> with >> legacy grub: >> >> 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use grub- >> static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures. >> 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages model >> it >> uses a core image and a bunch of modules. >> 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks. >> 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices. >> 5. Graphics and theming support. >> 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is >> scriptable >> using a shell-like script language. >> 7. Password support for each entry. >> >> > > I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition > and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is > unacceptable. > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is simply not supported.
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 6:27:14 PM Michel Catudal wrote: > Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : > > > This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some extent with > > legacy grub: > > > > 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use grub- > > static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures. > > 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages model it > > uses a core image and a bunch of modules. > > 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks. > > 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices. > > 5. Graphics and theming support. > > 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is scriptable > > using a shell-like script language. > > 7. Password support for each entry. > > > > > > I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is unacceptable. Yes and no, at least it can be a pain. I remember running into that and got it to work after several hours, unfortunately I forgot how. It may have been that it writes to both the mbr and the partition so you can restore the old mbr and still boot the partition. It also treats removable media and HDs different. It's hard to remember because I tried so many things. I think dd'ing the mbr to an image file and chainloading it worked but I did something else in the end. Next time I go down that road I'll make sure to document it. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit : This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some extent with legacy grub: 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use grub- static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures. 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages model it uses a core image and a bunch of modules. 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks. 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices. 5. Graphics and theming support. 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is scriptable using a shell-like script language. 7. Password support for each entry. I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is unacceptable. Michel -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 3:10:55 PM James wrote: > James tampabay.rr.com> writes: > > > > So on one particular (openrc) system, I have no interest in grub-2 > > or any other bootloaders. I see grub is both grub 1 and grub 2. > > So some vintage installs/upgrades got me thinking. What does Grub-2 > offer that grub-1 does not. I cannot think of anything that I need > from Grub-2 not mbr, nor efi board booting. Not dual/multi booting > as grub-1 excels on that, and not on drives larger than 2 T. > > > So what is the (hardware scenario) where grub-2 and it's problems > are superior to grub-1? I'm having trouble thinking of that > situation...? > > > James This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some extent with legacy grub: 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use grub- static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures. 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages model it uses a core image and a bunch of modules. 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks. 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices. 5. Graphics and theming support. 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is scriptable using a shell-like script language. 7. Password support for each entry. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:10:55PM +, James wrote: > James tampabay.rr.com> writes: > > > > So on one particular (openrc) system, I have no interest in grub-2 > > or any other bootloaders. I see grub is both grub 1 and grub 2. > > So some vintage installs/upgrades got me thinking. What does Grub-2 > offer that grub-1 does not. I cannot think of anything that I need > from Grub-2 not mbr, nor efi board booting. Not dual/multi booting > as grub-1 excels on that, and not on drives larger than 2 T. > > > So what is the (hardware scenario) where grub-2 and it's problems > are superior to grub-1? I'm having trouble thinking of that > situation...? 64-bit hardware with the no-multilib profile[1]. I have no "-bin" packages on my system, nor do I run any pre-built 3rd party applications, so I waste no time compiling worthless 32-bit libraries. Therefore, I need grub 2. Alec 1. > emerge -p grub:0 > > > > AMD64 Team; > grub-1 is not available on no-multilib profiles;
