[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[»Q«]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:24:31 +0100
Neil Bothwick  wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:34:30 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> 
> > I know it has worked in the past, and I know that recent versions of
> > some distros that use Grub2 still allow you to pick a partition for
> > the bootloader during the install.  
> 
> I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
> location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
> about?

Arch's wiki has the best explanation I could find of why it's
discouraged, along with the warnings grub itself displays when you do
it anyway.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-29 16:56, Neil Bothwick a écrit :

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:00:51 -0400, Michel Catudal wrote:


I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
about?

Not all distributions are Microsoft type. Fedora comes to mind.

WTF are you on about? You complain that GRUB2 can't install to a
partition, and call such restrictions Microsoft-like. I point out that
openSUSE does indeed install GRUB2 to a partition, just ike you want, and
now you call them Microsoft-like?

So in your view, installing to  the MBR is dictatorial like Microsoft
while installing to a partition like you say you want is also Microsoft
like? I think you should take Alan's advice.



You should read more carefully, I mentioned that some distributions do not 
allow it. Someone mentioned that Fedora won't let you.
I did succeed with Fedora but not during the normal installation. I have never 
had problems with SuSE which used to be my favorite
before I started using gentoo and funtoo.

Forcing to use only one operating system to control the PC is dictatorial. When 
I buy a computer I want to be in total control. When I have several OS 
installed I do not want one of them wiping out my bootloader access.

My main system is gentoo and when I goof on an update I fall back on funtoo 
until I get time to fix the issue. My other installs are SuSE, Fedora. I also 
had centos and scientific linux before one of my hard disks died. I will 
probably install them again.

Matter closed as I am getting bored discussing the issue, since both sides will never agree on the subject there is no point in talking any more about it. Some people just will never understand the necessity for us doing the kind of work I do for the need 
to have a reliable bootloader that is independant of any OS.


Michel

--
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:00:51 -0400, Michel Catudal wrote:

> > I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
> > location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
> > about?

> Not all distributions are Microsoft type. Fedora comes to mind.

WTF are you on about? You complain that GRUB2 can't install to a
partition, and call such restrictions Microsoft-like. I point out that
openSUSE does indeed install GRUB2 to a partition, just ike you want, and
now you call them Microsoft-like?

So in your view, installing to  the MBR is dictatorial like Microsoft
while installing to a partition like you say you want is also Microsoft
like? I think you should take Alan's advice.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Snacktrek, n.:
 The peculiar habit, when searching for a snack, of constantly
 returning to the refrigerator in hopes that something new will have
 materialized.


pgpDoWUdCdbZf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-29 12:57, Mike Gilbert a écrit :
If you want an "OS-independent" boot loader, the syslinux family of boot loaders might be a good choice for you. Or keep using grub legacy. Just don't expect either of them to be able to boot Linux from ZFS, or ext4 on lvm on luks. That's where grub2 
comes in handy. 


Thanks, I will look a that. All I care about booting on is ext4. I used to have 
reiserfs but since the guy in charge is in jail I switched to ext4.
For windows I use a separate PC. I might do the same thing with ecomstation 
eventually.

Michel

--
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Michel Catudal  wrote:
> You have to be able to boot the os that grub is installed on to be able to
> fix booting issues. If the OS that has control of grub2 is wacked you are
> screwed.
> At least with a bootloader that independant of any operating system and with
> a nice graphic interface it is a piece of cake to fix things since you do
> not ever lose your bootloader unless you let grub write on the MBR or on
> your bootloader partition.
>
> I know that you can boot on grub if it is not wiped but the interface is not
> friendly at all and if you do not remember the syntax you are screwed. Until
> grub becomes a nice real bootloader with a friendly user interface it cannot
> be allowed to be the sole controller of booting.

The grub config syntax is not really that bad; the main issue is that
grub-mkconfig generates a very complex config file to try and cover a
lot of possible systems.

grub is pretty much designed to be able to boot any OS you have
installed on any filesystem. That flexibility carries with it a level
of complexity as well. If you don't need that flexibility, a simpler
boot loader is always an option for you.

If you want an "OS-independent" boot loader, the syslinux family of
boot loaders might be a good choice for you. Or keep using grub
legacy. Just don't expect either of them to be able to boot Linux from
ZFS, or ext4 on lvm on luks. That's where grub2 comes in handy.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Terry Z.]

So please contribute to the grub2 repo a pull request that meets your
requirements rather than complain about it. You are also free to maintain
any package you want in a custom overlay in gentoo that packages those
requirements. Free software is about preventing lock in and empowering the
user. You have that power nor are you locked in. So use it.

You are quickly making yourself to be an  example of the type of user that
the free software community does NOT recognize or support.

You can make grub2 do whatever you want. So please do or ask for help in
that endeavor, not complaining about mythical Microsoft things.
On Aug 29, 2015 6:17 PM, "Michel Catudal"  wrote:

> Le 2015-08-28 07:24, Tom H a écrit :
>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Grant Edwards
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert  wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 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.
>
 It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
 simply not supported.

>>> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader.
>>> Bill Gates would be pround.
>>>
>>> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
>>> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
>>>
>> You can boot multiple installations via grub2 with os-prober.
>>
>>
> You have to be able to boot the os that grub is installed on to be able to
> fix booting issues. If the OS that has control of grub2 is wacked you are
> screwed.
> At least with a bootloader that independant of any operating system and
> with a nice graphic interface it is a piece of cake to fix things since you
> do not ever lose your bootloader unless you let grub write on the MBR or on
> your bootloader partition.
>
> I know that you can boot on grub if it is not wiped but the interface is
> not friendly at all and if you do not remember the syntax you are screwed.
> Until grub becomes a nice real bootloader with a friendly user interface it
> cannot be allowed to be the sole controller of booting.
>
> Michel
>
> --
> For Linux Software visit
> http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
>
>
>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Alan McKinnon]

On 29/08/2015 18:17, Michel Catudal wrote:
> Le 2015-08-28 07:24, Tom H a écrit :
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Grant Edwards
>>  wrote:
>>> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert  wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 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.
 It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
 simply not supported.
>>> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader.
>>> Bill Gates would be pround.
>>>
>>> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
>>> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
>> You can boot multiple installations via grub2 with os-prober.
>>
> 
> You have to be able to boot the os that grub is installed on to be able
> to fix booting issues. If the OS that has control of grub2 is wacked you
> are screwed.
> At least with a bootloader that independant of any operating system and
> with a nice graphic interface it is a piece of cake to fix things since
> you do not ever lose your bootloader unless you let grub write on the
> MBR or on your bootloader partition.
> 
> I know that you can boot on grub if it is not wiped but the interface is
> not friendly at all and if you do not remember the syntax you are
> screwed. Until grub becomes a nice real bootloader with a friendly user
> interface it cannot be allowed to be the sole controller of booting.



Michel PLEASE, get it now already, and stop cluttering up the list with
your spew.

DON'T LIKE GRUB? DON'T FUCKING USE IT.

Meanwhile the grub devs will continue to write the code they want to
write. You want them to do what you want? Pay them a salary, at market
rates.



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-28 07:24, Tom H a écrit :

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Grant Edwards
 wrote:

On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert  wrote:

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 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.

It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
simply not supported.

So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader.
Bill Gates would be pround.

For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

You can boot multiple installations via grub2 with os-prober.



You have to be able to boot the os that grub is installed on to be able to fix 
booting issues. If the OS that has control of grub2 is wacked you are screwed.
At least with a bootloader that independant of any operating system and with a 
nice graphic interface it is a piece of cake to fix things since you do not 
ever lose your bootloader unless you let grub write on the MBR or on your 
bootloader partition.

I know that you can boot on grub if it is not wiped but the interface is not friendly at all and if you do not remember the syntax you are screwed. Until grub becomes a nice real bootloader with a friendly user interface it cannot be allowed to be the sole 
controller of booting.


Michel

--
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-28 05:24, Neil Bothwick a écrit :

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:34:30 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:


I know it has worked in the past, and I know that recent versions of
some distros that use Grub2 still allow you to pick a partition for
the bootloader during the install.

I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
about?



Not all distributions are Microsoft type. Fedora comes to mind.

--
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 03:46:13 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:

> > I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
> > location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
> > about?  
> 
> The last time I checked, CentOS/RH/Fedora don't allow installing a
> bootloader to a partition.  At least I _think_ they don't allow it.  I
> find the installer completely baffling.  I've done at least half-dozen
> installs in the past year or two, and I still find the installer
> impossible to fathom.

Anaconda is a classic example of "if it ain't broke, wait for an update".


-- 
Neil Bothwick

O.K. I'm weird, but I'm saving up to become eccentric.


pgpHShZXWYzot.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-28, Neil Bothwick  wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:34:30 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> I know it has worked in the past, and I know that recent versions of
>> some distros that use Grub2 still allow you to pick a partition for
>> the bootloader during the install.
>
> I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
> location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
> about?

The last time I checked, CentOS/RH/Fedora don't allow installing a
bootloader to a partition.  At least I _think_ they don't allow it.  I
find the installer completely baffling.  I've done at least half-dozen
installs in the past year or two, and I still find the installer
impossible to fathom.

Though many things about Ubuntu don't agree with me, at least the
installer makes some sort of sense.

I link the Gentoo isntaller best of all.

--
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Tom H]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski
 wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:19:29 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:


>>> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
>>> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
>>
>> Actually, that's a good scenario for GRUB2. grub2-mkconfig can detect
>> all Linux installations on a system, not just the running one, so you
>> only need one GRUB to boot everything. That's why distro installers are
>> so much better at setting up Linux dual booting these days, because GRUB2
>> makes it simple for them.
>
> It's true that grub2-mkconfig does Linux detection well but the problem
> with one grub and multiple distros is the need to manually regenerate the
> config.
>
> I give you the following scenario:
> Gentoo + another binary distro (say Fedora). Whichever one manages the
> grub config can regenerate it on updates. On gentoo you'd do that manually
> (post-install hooks?), Fedora would run grub2-mkconfig on kernel updates.

Fedora and RHEL don't use grub2-mkconfig (unfortunately).


> But what happens when the other one (not responsible for the config)
> updates in a way that affects booting...?

You're screwed no matter which bootloader you're using,

With EFI, depending on your setup, you can update your boot entries
without having to, for example, mount another distro's "/" or "/boot".

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Tom H]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
 wrote:
>
> You do need a manager like efibootmgr unless you have a really good "bios" 
> menu
> where you can manage your entries. Only removable media is autodetected on all
> EFI boxes I've seen. I use GRUB2 because my efi firmware (like most) is really
> buggy. Changing the boot order doesn't work at all (neither on the menu nor
> through efibootmgr), so I have to delete and recreate the entries in the right
> order. What I did is create 2 efi entries, one for my main kernel and one for
> grub2 and I added entries for all my secondary kernels and windows on the
> grub2 menu.

I've used "efibootmgr -o ..." to change the boot order on a number of
laptops and U1/U2 systems without a problem. Perhaps I've been lucky.

I prefer to use elilo/gummiboot on EFI.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Tom H]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Grant Edwards
 wrote:
> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert  wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 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.
>>
>> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
>> simply not supported.
>
> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader.
> Bill Gates would be pround.
>
> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

You can boot multiple installations via grub2 with os-prober.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:34:30 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:

> I know it has worked in the past, and I know that recent versions of
> some distros that use Grub2 still allow you to pick a partition for
> the bootloader during the install.

I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
about?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Would a fly without wings be called a walk?


pgp8IDIeJGFQN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-27, Jeremi Piotrowski  wrote:

> I much prefer chainloading and giving each distro free reign over their
> own boot loader. That way they can pretend they're the boss and work the
> way they were intended to and I can supervise things from gentoo.

Yup.  I've got up to 12 Linux distros on some machines, and I've found
that approach works far, far better that allowing multiple distros to
fight over who gets to configure a single bootloader.  A small grub
partition for the files needed by grub1 in the MBR, and then each
partition is a world unto itself with it's own bootloader that gets
managed by whatever distro is installed on that partion.

That used to be trivial, but it's getting a more difficult to do that
these with some distros refusing to install a bootloader anywhere
other than the MBR.  [That's just one of an increasing number of
reasons for my increasing dislike of Fedora/CentOS/RH.]  It's still a
lot easier than letting multiple distros all think they own the MBR
bootloader.  I've never had much luck with that at all.

--
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Jeremi Piotrowski]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:19:29 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> 
> > For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> > pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> 
> Actually, that's a good scenario for GRUB2. grub2-mkconfig can detect
> all Linux installations on a system, not just the running one, so you
> only need one GRUB to boot everything. That's why distro installers are
> so much better at setting up Linux dual booting these days, because GRUB2
> makes it simple for them.
> 

It's true that grub2-mkconfig does Linux detection well but the problem
with one grub and multiple distros is the need to manually regenerate the
config.

I give you the following scenario:
Gentoo + another binary distro (say Fedora). Whichever one manages the
grub config can regenerate it on updates. On gentoo you'd do that manually
(post-install hooks?), Fedora would run grub2-mkconfig on kernel updates.
But what happens when the other one (not responsible for the config)
updates in a way that affects booting...?

You end up with an inconsistant config. To regenerate you need to boot
into the config-managing-distro or atleast chroot. But the worst thing is
you have to review all updates to find out if the config needs changing.

I much prefer chainloading and giving each distro free reign over their
own boot loader. That way they can pretend they're the boss and work the
way they were intended to and I can supervise things from gentoo.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Jeremi Piotrowski]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:

> I use GRUB2 because my efi firmware (like most) is really buggy.
> Changing the boot order doesn't work at all (neither on the menu nor
> through efibootmgr), so I have to delete and recreate the entries in the
> right order. What I did is create 2 efi entries, one for my main kernel
> and one for grub2 and I added entries for all my secondary kernels and
> windows on the grub2 menu.

I have a similar setup: an efi entry for my kernel and gummiboot instead
of grub2.

I would use the firmware boot selector for multibooting, but going there
lengthens the boot by around 10 seconds (Lenovo notebook) which is too
much for my liking.  So instead I by default boot into gummiboot and from
there I choose my kernel, separate grub2's from Fedora and Ubuntu, or
FreeBSD. Everything is nice and fast that way.

Fedora and Ubuntu manage their own grub configs on kernel updates and I
don't have to mess with any boot loader configs myself.


On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Mick wrote:

> Interesting ... here I had no such problems on an EUFI Asus MoBo.  I
> have a number of kernels (up to six last time I looked) and I can change
> the boot order with 'efibootmgr -o ,,...,'

I have a MSI B85-G43 and I must say that thing is the worst when it comes
to managing the UEFI boot order. It completely ignores the one set using
`efibootmgr -o` and instead seems to keep track of the order in which
entries are added.

Half of the time it even ignores me selecting the EFI boot entry during
boot and instead merrily continues to load what it considers to be the
_first_ entry.

So I just use grub2 there and everything is fine.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:06:25 PM Mick wrote:
> On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 21:03:19 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:44:07 PM Mick wrote:
> > > On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 20:30:17 Grant Edwards wrote:
> > > > On 2015-08-27, James  wrote:
> > > > > Grant Edwards  gmail.com> writes:
> > > > >> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's
> > > > >> a pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> > > > > grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit
> > > > > systems,
> > > > 
> > > > I still use it on all my 64-bit machines.
> > > > 
> > > > > (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like
> > > > > btrfs-native or via lvm?
> > > > 
> > > > I haven't started using UEFI boot mode mode yet, so I don't know how
> > > > thetwo grub's compare.
> > > 
> > > UEFI do not need GRUB{1,2} or any other boot manager.  They can boot any
> > > kernel you drop in the EFI boot partition directly, as long as you set 
it
> > > up so.  It becomes cumbersome if you are planning to multiboot various
> > > kernels
> > 
> > &
> > 
> > > OS frequently.
> > 
> > You do need a manager like efibootmgr unless you have a really good "bios"
> > menu where you can manage your entries. Only removable media is
> > autodetected on all EFI boxes I've seen. I use GRUB2 because my efi
> > firmware (like most) is really buggy. Changing the boot order doesn't work
> > at all (neither on the menu nor through efibootmgr), so I have to delete
> > and recreate the entries in the right order. What I did is create 2 efi
> > entries, one for my main kernel and one for grub2 and I added entries for
> > all my secondary kernels and windows on the grub2 menu.
> 
> Interesting ... here I had no such problems on an EUFI Asus MoBo.  I have a 
> number of kernels (up to six last time I looked) and I can change the boot 
> order with 'efibootmgr -o ,,...,'

I didn't mean  that all or most have that specific bug. But a  lot of them are 
really buggy. Some have case sensitive FAT drivers, or unusual filename length 
limits, or will only boot a specific filename like boot.efi. One has come up on 
this list a couple times with gummyboot that will ignore some entries 
seemingly at random which I would bet is a firmware bug.

efibootmgr -o seems to work for me, running efibootmgr again shows that the 
order has been updated but it is not persisted and when I reboot the previous 
default entry still boots. The --bootnext option does work for me when I need 
to boot a different entry just once.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Mick]

On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 21:03:19 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:44:07 PM Mick wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 20:30:17 Grant Edwards wrote:
> > > On 2015-08-27, James  wrote:
> > > > Grant Edwards  gmail.com> writes:
> > > >> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's
> > > >> a pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> > > > 
> > > > So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> > > > grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit
> > > > systems,
> > > 
> > > I still use it on all my 64-bit machines.
> > > 
> > > > (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like
> > > > btrfs-native or via lvm?
> > > 
> > > I haven't started using UEFI boot mode mode yet, so I don't know how
> > > thetwo grub's compare.
> > 
> > UEFI do not need GRUB{1,2} or any other boot manager.  They can boot any
> > kernel you drop in the EFI boot partition directly, as long as you set it
> > up so.  It becomes cumbersome if you are planning to multiboot various
> > kernels
> 
> &
> 
> > OS frequently.
> 
> You do need a manager like efibootmgr unless you have a really good "bios"
> menu where you can manage your entries. Only removable media is
> autodetected on all EFI boxes I've seen. I use GRUB2 because my efi
> firmware (like most) is really buggy. Changing the boot order doesn't work
> at all (neither on the menu nor through efibootmgr), so I have to delete
> and recreate the entries in the right order. What I did is create 2 efi
> entries, one for my main kernel and one for grub2 and I added entries for
> all my secondary kernels and windows on the grub2 menu.

Interesting ... here I had no such problems on an EUFI Asus MoBo.  I have a 
number of kernels (up to six last time I looked) and I can change the boot 
order with 'efibootmgr -o ,,...,'

-- 
Regards,
Mick


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:44:07 PM Mick wrote:
> On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 20:30:17 Grant Edwards wrote:
> > On 2015-08-27, James  wrote:
> > > Grant Edwards  gmail.com> writes:
> > >> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> > >> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> > > 
> > > So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> > > grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit systems,
> > 
> > I still use it on all my 64-bit machines.
> > 
> > > (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like
> > > btrfs-native or via lvm?
> > 
> > I haven't started using UEFI boot mode mode yet, so I don't know how
> > thetwo grub's compare.
> 
> UEFI do not need GRUB{1,2} or any other boot manager.  They can boot any 
> kernel you drop in the EFI boot partition directly, as long as you set it up 
> so.  It becomes cumbersome if you are planning to multiboot various kernels 
& 
> OS frequently.

You do need a manager like efibootmgr unless you have a really good "bios" menu 
where you can manage your entries. Only removable media is autodetected on all 
EFI boxes I've seen. I use GRUB2 because my efi firmware (like most) is really 
buggy. Changing the boot order doesn't work at all (neither on the menu nor 
through efibootmgr), so I have to delete and recreate the entries in the right 
order. What I did is create 2 efi entries, one for my main kernel and one for 
grub2 and I added entries for all my secondary kernels and windows on the 
grub2 menu.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 4:47:30 PM James wrote:
> Grant Edwards  gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > 
> > On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert  gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal 
> comcast.net> 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.
> 
> Hmmm. For my purposes (That is creating a PreQualifing Matrix based
> on the answers to some questions) it would seem that requiring installation
> of Grub on a partition and not the MBR would mean that only Grub-2 can be 
used.
> 
> 
> > > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> > > simply not supported.
> > So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader. 
> > Bill Gates would be proud.
> 
> Yea there does seem to a lot of that going around. The good news is
> there are so many qualified kernel/lowlevel/devicedriver coders
> around these days, it's only a matter of time before a serious
> fork in the bootloader/kernel world of linux occurs. It just keeps
> boiling and roiling, imho. ymmv.
> 
> 
> > For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> > pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> 
> So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit systems,
> (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like btrfs-native
> or via lvm?

An EFI 64-bit kernel can only be loaded by a 64-bit EFI bootloader. With Linux 
I think it doesn't matter because I think even with the EFI stub you get a 
hybrid kernel that can be booted by a regular bootloader, but things like the 
EFI framebuffer driver and efivars will not work unless you boot in EFI mode.

You can chainload an efi bootloader with grub1 but I think that only emulates 
EFI, so these things may still not work. And I don't think that's officially 
supported anymore because there's grub2 for that purpose.

> I'm not challenging what you are saying; I'm trying to figure out what 
> everybody is suggestions to publish the first draft of the PreQualifying
> Matrix Questions and the resulting valid choices one can infer. Grub 1vs2
> is a big part of that matrix.
> 
> 
> curiously,
> James
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Mick]

On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 20:30:17 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2015-08-27, James  wrote:
> > Grant Edwards  gmail.com> writes:
> >> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> >> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> > 
> > So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> > grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit systems,
> 
> I still use it on all my 64-bit machines.
> 
> > (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like
> > btrfs-native or via lvm?
> 
> I haven't started using UEFI boot mode mode yet, so I don't know how
> thetwo grub's compare.

UEFI do not need GRUB{1,2} or any other boot manager.  They can boot any 
kernel you drop in the EFI boot partition directly, as long as you set it up 
so.  It becomes cumbersome if you are planning to multiboot various kernels & 
OS frequently.

-- 
Regards,
Mick


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-27, Mick  wrote:

> 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 know it has worked in the past, and I know that recent versions of
some distros that use Grub2 still allow you to pick a partition for
the bootloader during the install.

> 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.

-- 
Grant Edwards   grant.b.edwardsYow! I'm dressing up in
  at   an ill-fitting IVY-LEAGUE
  gmail.comSUIT!!  Too late...

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-27, James  wrote:
> Grant Edwards  gmail.com> writes:

>> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
>> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
>
> So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit systems,

I still use it on all my 64-bit machines.

> (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like btrfs-native
> or via lvm?

I haven't started using UEFI boot mode mode yet, so I don't know how
thetwo grub's compare.

-- 
Grant Edwards   grant.b.edwardsYow! ... I have read the
  at   INSTRUCTIONS ...
  gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:19:29 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:

> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

Actually, that's a good scenario for GRUB2. grub2-mkconfig can detect
all Linux installations on a system, not just the running one, so you
only need one GRUB to boot everything. That's why distro installers are
so much better at setting up Linux dual booting these days, because GRUB2
makes it simple for them.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

What do you have when you have six lawyers buried up to their necks in
sand? Not enough sand.


pgpES1qdIiqcS.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[James]

Grant Edwards  gmail.com> writes:

> 
> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert  gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal 
comcast.net> 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.

Hmmm. For my purposes (That is creating a PreQualifing Matrix based
on the answers to some questions) it would seem that requiring installation
of Grub on a partition and not the MBR would mean that only Grub-2 can be used.


> > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> > simply not supported.
> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader. 
> Bill Gates would be proud.

Yea there does seem to a lot of that going around. The good news is
there are so many qualified kernel/lowlevel/devicedriver coders
around these days, it's only a matter of time before a serious
fork in the bootloader/kernel world of linux occurs. It just keeps
boiling and roiling, imho. ymmv.


> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit systems,
(u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like btrfs-native
or via lvm?

I'm not challenging what you are saying; I'm trying to figure out what 
everybody is suggestions to publish the first draft of the PreQualifying
Matrix Questions and the resulting valid choices one can infer. Grub 1vs2
is a big part of that matrix.


curiously,
James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Mike Gilbert]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Grant Edwards
 wrote:
> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert  wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 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.
>>
>> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
>> simply not supported.
>
> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader.
> Bill Gates would be pround.

What a dumb, ignorant comment. Installation to a partition does not
work due to technical limitations, and the grub developers have no
interest in spending time working around them. They don't give a crap
about taking over your PC.

> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

grub can be configured to boot multiple linux distros from a single
config file. Generating said config file can be a bit of work, but
it's definitely doable.

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 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.
>
> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> simply not supported.

So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader. 
Bill Gates would be pround.

For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

-- 
Grant Edwards   grant.b.edwardsYow! I'm having a BIG BANG
  at   THEORY!!
  gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Jeremi Piotrowski]

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote:

> The main benefit is reduced compile times for some packages since I only
> compile the 64-bit versions, less stuff on the filesystem, etc. If you
> do not run any applications that use a 32-bit version of a library, that
> library is taking up disk space and compile time, but is never used.

The multilib profiles do not enable ABI_X86="32" by default so the default
setup is to only build the 64-bit versions of everything. These profiles
give you the _option_ to build both 32-bit and 64-bit things.

The only things multilib by default on a multlib profile are pretty much
glibc and gcc.

> I also am a bit of a purist, and just run no-multilib because it is
> emotionally satisfying.

The above reasons would make emotional satisfaction and purity the only
reasons to go down this road. Doesn't mean they're not valid :)

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-26, James  wrote:
> Alec Ten Harmsel  alectenharmsel.com> writes:
>
>> > 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.
>
> Ok this is interesting. Is this only an AMD64 thing?

Yep.  In theory the same thing could come up with respect to 64/32 bit
SPARC or something, but in practice it's ARM64

> On Arm64 you'd most likely want to run 32 bit binaries.

Some people do.  Some people don't

> I'm OK with this, but what is the benefit of such profile selection::
> curiously I have no experience with the profile selection, despite
> running quite a few amd64 system. What would the benefits be 
> running this profile on older amd64 hardware ?

The main benefit of ARM64 w/o 32-bit libs is that you can't run acroread.

;)

If only evince could "print current view", I could ditch acroread...

-- 
Grant Edwards   grant.b.edwardsYow! What I need is a
  at   MATURE RELATIONSHIP with a
  gmail.comFLOPPY DISK ...

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[James]

Alec Ten Harmsel  alectenharmsel.com> writes:


> I don't know anything about arm64, but if it is 64-bit, why would you
> need 32-bit binaries?

An enormous codebase that is not likely to get ported to 64 bit arm.
Easy (embedded) product migration to arm64.

also, arm64 supports big indian and little indian codes simultaneously.

> I also am a bit of a purist, and just run no-multilib because it is
> emotionally satisfying.

Naw. Your teasing?  (wink wink nudge nudge).


> > OFF TOPIC
> > On another note: have you seen spark-1.5 ? Cleaner build?
> >
http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/Fwd-ANNOUNCE-Spark-1-5-0-preview-package-td13683.html

> I haven't looked at the new features of 1.5 specifically, but I know
> that the build process is basically the same. The API is nice, but it is
> definitely possible to write a faster job using Hadoop's API since it is
> lower-level and can be optimized more, so I spend more time writing jobs
> using Hadoop's API.

I've read that building spark-1.5 from sources is much cleaner now.
bgo-523412. (your on the cc list?). Particularly parsing out
hadoop support, for more focus regression testing on bare metal
setups  Drop me a line when you install 1.5 at work and how it
runs with Hadoop.


hth,
James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Alec Ten Harmsel]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:48:12PM +, James wrote:
> Alec Ten Harmsel  alectenharmsel.com> writes:
> > 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.
> 
> Ok this is interesting. Is this only an AMD64 thing? On Arm64 you'd
> most likely want to run 32 bit binaries.

I don't know anything about arm64, but if it is 64-bit, why would you
need 32-bit binaries?

> This is profile [11} right?
> 
>   default/linux/amd64/13.0/no-multilib

Yes.

> I'm OK with this, but what is the benefit of such profile selection::
> curiously I have no experience with the profile selection, despite
> running quite a few amd64 system. What would the benefits be 
> running this profile on older amd64 hardware ?

The main benefit is reduced compile times for some packages since I only
compile the 64-bit versions, less stuff on the filesystem, etc. If you
do not run any applications that use a 32-bit version of a library, that
library is taking up disk space and compile time, but is never used.

I also am a bit of a purist, and just run no-multilib because it is
emotionally satisfying.

> > > AMD64 Team;  gentoo.org>
> > > grub-1 is not available on no-multilib profiles;
> 
> I had not seen this, but so I guess this is well documented..?
> Does that profile selection prevent one from selecting grub-1 during
> and installation?

Yes, although just now was the first time I ever tried installing
grub-1.

> OFF TOPIC
> On another note: have you seen spark-1.5 ? Cleaner build?
> http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/Fwd-ANNOUNCE-Spark-1-5-0-preview-package-td13683.html
> ..

I haven't looked at the new features of 1.5 specifically, but I know
that the build process is basically the same. The API is nice, but it is
definitely possible to write a faster job using Hadoop's API since it is
lower-level and can be optimized more, so I spend more time writing jobs
using Hadoop's API.

Alec

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[James]

Alec Ten Harmsel  alectenharmsel.com> writes:

> > 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.

Ok this is interesting. Is this only an AMD64 thing? On Arm64 you'd
most likely want to run 32 bit binaries. This is profile [11} right?

  default/linux/amd64/13.0/no-multilib

I'm OK with this, but what is the benefit of such profile selection::
curiously I have no experience with the profile selection, despite
running quite a few amd64 system. What would the benefits be 
running this profile on older amd64 hardware ?


> > AMD64 Team;  gentoo.org>
> > grub-1 is not available on no-multilib profiles;

I had not seen this, but so I guess this is well documented..?
Does that profile selection prevent one from selecting grub-1 during
and installation?

OFF TOPIC
On another note: have you seen spark-1.5 ? Cleaner build?
http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/Fwd-ANNOUNCE-Spark-1-5-0-preview-package-td13683.html
..


James