Had to reinstall Kubuntu 19.10. Used BTRFS for root on a 1TB SSD. Grub-
install fails. I think this bug is regressed.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
Title:
Non trivial grub2
Regression after upgrade disco -> eoan, booted from btrfs disks. Worked
normally before upgrade, cannot install grub after upgrade. Ended up
with non-bootable system, had to plug an old disk exclusively to put
/boot there.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kubuntu
This still seems to exit. I am trying to install Ubuntu Server 18.10 on
a Intel C202 based server, and although the installer sees and activates
the MDADM it finds, installing the boot loader simply fails.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
** No longer affects: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
Title:
Non trivial grub2 installs no longer fit in small embed areas
To manage notifications about
No, I am complaining about the fact that I had a perfectly working
ubuntu server which stopped booting after upgrading. That is a bad thing
for an operating system. This should not happen.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
@Javier: I don't think it is a bug per se. And definitely not ubuntu
related. GRUB2 is complex piece of sotfware that keeps developing. I
don't quite understand how they managed to put ext2 mounting and
kernel+initrd loading into mere 31744 bytes back then. You aren't
complaining you can't install
@Arie: thank you, but I hoped that a software issue could be resolved without
the need of
additional hardware (I don't have a bigger drive right now). But I can survive:
I can boot
from a live USB with Super Grub2. Anyway, I think that such gross errors should
not
take place in an upgrade.
@Javier: Take a bigger drive, format it with first partition starting at
sector 2048 and transfer partitions content. Then you will have enough
space to fit GRUB bootloader into.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
I finally upgraded my 12.04LTS server to 14.04LTS last week, and I
really regret having done this. I am suprised this bug is considered as
unimportant, when it completelly spoils the booting system. Nothing
seems to work.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Please don't mark bugs as fixed unless you actually fixed it.
** Changed in: grub2 (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Released => Triaged
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
Title:
Non
** Changed in: grub2 (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to a duplicate bug report (1266195).
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
Title:
Non trivial grub2 installs no longer fit
This bug has been reported on the Ubuntu ISO testing tracker.
A list of all reports related to this bug can be found here:
http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/reports/bugs/1059827
** Tags added: iso-testing
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kubuntu
Bugs, which is
Your issue is unrelated to this bug Chris. You must have used GPT on
the disk in the past, and used fdisk to write a new MBR, leaving parts
of the GPT behind.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
I hit this bug in a different way with 14.04:
Use fdisk to create a new mbr and single partition on a USB-connected drive
mkfs.btrfs the partition
Run installer and select the partition as root, and drive device as grub target
After grub fails the installer exits. fdisk reports the partition
Sorry, I did get a little confused over the sectors thing. The 63rd LBA sector
is the starting point for the 0MB boundary of partitions usually. I wasn't
thinking straight. I'm used to using the MB settings for partitioning instead.
Anyhow, the normal Grub2 install for any partition that's
** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Triaged
** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided = Wishlist
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
Title:
Non
No, it doesn't need anywhere near 1, let alone 2 MB. It is something
like 45k.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
Title:
Non trivial grub2 installs no longer fit in small embed
Sorry, I was talking about an MBR system, not a UEFI. Core.img is too
large to fit into the first 64 sectors (starting from 0). And, so, the
next best place to start would be the 127 - 128 boundary. Also known as
the 2MB boundary.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member
You're not making sense. 2 MB is 4096 sectors. The default start
location for the last several years has been sector 2048, or 1 MB, which
leaves plenty of room for the core to fit.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
** Project changed: installation-report = installation-report (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
Title:
Non trivial grub2 installs no longer fit in small embed areas
To
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: installation-report (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to a duplicate bug report (1266195).
I think the installer should be added to this bug. What is the name of
the package that will install ubuntu? Or partition tool?
I do not know well the technical details of the problem but I agree with
cryo-rebirth .. the installer or partitioner should warn when a
partition BtrFS is used and is
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: installation-report (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
** Also affects: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to a duplicate bug report (1266195).
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
Title:
Non trivial grub2 installs no
** No longer affects: installation-report (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
Title:
Non trivial grub2 installs no longer fit in small embed areas
To manage
The installer should detect that the partition starts at sector 63 and
display a warning.
My netbook comes with Windows 7 preinstalled.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
Title:
Actually, Phillip, BtrFS requires 2MB for a Grub2 installation. So, while you
are correct that it does start at 1MB, the partitioner does have an error in
not including that the rules for BtrFS are different. The normal 1MB is a part
of the normal MBR rules. Since Grub2 requires some extra
There is no need to reformat with Ext4. If you wish to use BtrFS for the Boot
partition, it's recommended. Just tell the partitioner to start at the 1MB
boundary instead of the first sector. To reiterate, you need an empty 1MB at
the beginning of your drive to write to. I would call this an
It's not an error with the partitioner or installer since it does start
the partition at 1 MiB. The problem is when you have an old disk that
you partitioned with say, Windows XP, which started the partition at
sector 63.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Ok I reinstall, format the root / partition with the ext4 file system.
If you still have not found the solution, the installer should warn
about.this. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-
installer/+bug/1270729
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
That's the problem; the partition starts at sector 63 so that doesn't
leave enough room for grub and the btrfs module.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1059827
Title:
Non trivial grub2
** Summary changed:
- Non trival grub2 installs no longer fit in small embed areas
+ Non trivial grub2 installs no longer fit in small embed areas
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
** Description changed:
Traditionally the first boot track of the disk was left unpartitioned.
This area is used to embed the grub2 core.img file. The size of this
area used to typically be 62 sectors. In recent years the typical size
has changed to 2048 sectors to keep the partitions
33 matches
Mail list logo
