Otavio Salvador wrote: [Thursday 09 December 2004 17:47] > || On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 16:28:38 +0100 > || Thomas Hofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > th> I'd like to use a separate partition for /boot/grub, because I > have a th> heavy multiboot configuration and I don't like to lose my > menu.lst when th> I reinstall the "master" OS. > > I didn't understand one thing. You have one partition for /boot and > *only* for /boot/grub? > > If you have /boot on separated partition it is a serious bug because > a lot of people use it in this way. Otherwise, it can be leave for > post-sarge IMHO.
/boot is part of the root filesystem (hda6), and hda5 is mounted on /boot/grub. There are only the root partition and the partition that is mounted on /boot/grub. I'd like to explain my motivation: I'm running 5-8 differnent operating systems on a single testing machine, and they all want to install their own bootloaders. I handle this mess by having a "master grub" which is installed in the MBR and whose stage files and menu.lst reside on /dev/hda5 (all contents of /boot/grub). I think of it as an independent bootloader that is not part of any of the installed systems. When I install a new operating system, I install its bootloader into the same partition as the operating system itself. Then I create a new menu.lst entry in the /dev/hda5 partition to chainload the "slave bootloader" using the "master grub". A year ago I used Suse to set up the master grub using the partition layout described above - and it worked without a problem. Lately I deleted the whole disk and started over again, but this time I wanted to use Debian to set up the "master grub". That didn't work, so I filed the bug. I agree that very few people need or want such a partition layout. So I think it's OK when this bug is handled with low priority. Thank you for your time, Thomas. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
