On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Camaleón <noela...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:31:36 -0400, Tom H wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Camaleón <noela...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> AFAIK this calls for block list based installation of GRUB 2 which is >>>>> not recommended cause it introduces the same issues than map file in >>>>> LILO. >>> I don't know what you mean here. Installing GRUB in the first sector of >>> a partition instead the MBR has been always possible (also documented) >>> and nothing to be avoided "per se". Can you expand this? >> When you install grub1/grub2 to a PBR, you cannot embed stage >> 1.5/core.img in the gap between the first sector and the start of a >> partition as you would do when you install grub1/grub2 to an MBR. The >> stage 1/boot.img then has to use block lists to load stage 2/core.img. > And what are the drawbacks for that? > > Reading from GRUB's legacy documentation¹, I see none listed. However, > GRUB2 manual² does not even mention the possibility of installing GRUB2 > into the first boot sector of a partition, maybe something has changed > between the two versions :-? Nothing's changed except that you have to use the "--force" option to install grub2 into a PBR. The drawback, according to grub, is that you have to use block lists rather than use an intermediate step (grub1's stage 1.5 or grub2's core.img) that understands filesystems. >>>> Cameleon: You can choose to install grub2 to a PBR by refusing to >>>> install it to the MBR. d-i'll prompt you to provide a device - and it >>>> accepts a partition. >>> >>> Yes, I know. >>> >>> But AFAICT, installing nothing in the MBR (e.g., from a low level >>> formatted hard disk) is not the same than having "generic boot code" >>> here. >> >> I've never heard of "generic boot code". I don't see why SUSE uses it; >> it must be unnecessary since none of the other distributions that I've >> used use it. >> >> Are you sure about the "generic boot code"? > > Yes :-) > > I've been installing several (open)SUSEs since many years and this option > has been always there. Let me search to grab some docs... okay, here it > is³ the official paper. The option comes from the installer, when you > first select to install GRUB you can then cherry pick some advanced > options like the usuals (set bootable flag, etc...) and this one: > > *** > Write Generic Boot Code to MBR > Replaces the current MBR with generic, operating system independent code. > *** > > Why this option? I can't tell and I don't know (because I have not directly > tested) if there's any difference between choosing this and installing no > bootloader at all. To be sincere, I don't know if by selecting no bootloader > you can boot at all, I mean, directly from your hard disk with no other > helpers > :-? > > ¹http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/legacy/grub.html#Installing-GRUB-natively > ²http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub.html#Installing-GRUB-using-grub_002dinstall > ³http://doc.opensuse.org/documentation/html/openSUSE/opensuse-reference/cha.grub.html#sec.boot.yast2.config.advanced Thanks for the info and the links. You've misunderstood me. I didn't say that Linux could boot without a bootloader. I said that I didn't understand the purpose of the "Generic Boot Code" since other distributions don't use it when installing grub to a PBR. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sy4R-6j=_fiBrO7tSLMfEN45f6-i01aYawQ7GaBf16n=a...@mail.gmail.com
