Agree.
A 'ntldr' or 'chainloader --ntldr' command is not mandatory. But it is
'nice to have' because it allows to boot even if the boot
code (6 sectors) in the area behind the PBR is not present for whatever
reason. See my previsions mail with the test case.
--
Regards,
Christian Franke
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:28:21AM +1100, Nando wrote:
I've just checked the 0.97 release and find the ntldr patch is not
included. What version of grub2 was the original ntldr.diff patch
against??
Unfortunately it missed the time for 1.97 release, but we expect to include
this with 1.98.
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 11:57:48PM +0200, Christian Franke wrote:
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
About the command, i think that it will be simpler for the user if we have
only one command: chainloader (like in grub4dos) that will try to detect the
type of the bootloader. This is only my
Robert Millan wrote:
It probably would make sense that the 'ntldr' command does simple
signature checks and fail on unknown files unless '--force' is specified.
You mean checking for the PE signature? Yes, this would be nice too.
A check of the first byte (jmp, 0xe9) and some file
grub4dos checks for ntldr as follows:
- file starts with 0xe9, 0x??, 0x01,
- first sector does not end with bootsector signature 0x55,0xaa,
- file size exceeds 0x3.
For me it sounds like a heuristic. I would prefer to trust user rather
than introducing heuristics to check file type.
--
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
grub4dos checks for ntldr as follows:
- file starts with 0xe9, 0x??, 0x01,
- first sector does not end with bootsector signature 0x55,0xaa,
- file size exceeds 0x3.
For me it sounds like a heuristic. I would prefer to trust user rather
than
Le 7 août 09 à 13:43, Robert Millan a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:17:30PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
ntldr is a boot loader like any other and it needs its configuration
and support files to work. Without them it fails (not sure how) but
that is not unexpected.
I tend to agree,
About the command, i think that it will be simpler for the user if we have
only one command: chainloader (like in grub4dos) that will try to detect the
type of the bootloader. This is only my personal opinion.
I don't agree with this. chainloader and ntldr don't share the same
syntax:
Michal Suchanek wrote:
I tried putting the ntldr binary on an empty fat32 disk and loading
with the grub ntldr command.
The system just reboots.
This also happens when ntldr is loaded by the regular boot code in
PBR+boot area.
It is apparently the normal(?-) behavior when ntdetect.com
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
About the command, i think that it will be simpler for the user if we have
only one command: chainloader (like in grub4dos) that will try to detect the
type of the bootloader. This is only my personal opinion.
I don't agree with this. chainloader and
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 07:35:32AM +0200, Christian Franke wrote:
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Robert Millan... wrote:
After thinking a bit about this, I don't think we want this command in
its current form.
The problem is it is misleading. It
2009/8/7 Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 07:35:32AM +0200, Christian Franke wrote:
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Robert Millan... wrote:
After thinking a bit about this, I don't think we want this command in
its current form.
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:17:30PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
ntldr is a boot loader like any other and it needs its configuration
and support files to work. Without them it fails (not sure how) but
that is not unexpected.
I tend to agree, but in this particular case, it's conceivable
2009/8/7 Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:17:30PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
ntldr is a boot loader like any other and it needs its configuration
and support files to work. Without them it fails (not sure how) but
that is not unexpected.
I tend to agree, but in
Robert Millan wrote:
This patch implements a loader for NTLDR boot semantics (which are
the same in BootMGR, hence both are supported).
It still needs some cleanup in chainloader.c before it can be merged [1],
but I submit it so that others can test it and report if it works for
them.
After thinking a bit about this, I don't think we want this command in
its current form.
The problem is it is misleading. It leads the user to think it can load
ntldr as a standalone file, but in fact it is reading the PBR behind the
scenes.
If we want this feature at all, I think it should be
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Robert Millanr...@aybabtu.com wrote:
After thinking a bit about this, I don't think we want this command in
its current form.
The problem is it is misleading. It leads the user to think it can load
ntldr as a standalone file, but in fact it is reading the PBR
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Robert Millan... wrote:
After thinking a bit about this, I don't think we want this command in
its current form.
The problem is it is misleading. It leads the user to think it can load
ntldr as a standalone file, but in
Hi,
This patch implements a loader for NTLDR boot semantics (which are
the same in BootMGR, hence both are supported).
It still needs some cleanup in chainloader.c before it can be merged [1],
but I submit it so that others can test it and report if it works for
them.
[1] ideally, we should be
19 matches
Mail list logo
