On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:09:54 +0100, Dom wrote: > On 16/07/12 15:41, Camaleón wrote: >> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:14:10 -0400, Tom H wrote:
(...) >>> Block lists are supposed to be less reliable/more fragile/(fill in >>> with the negative flavor that suits you). >> >> I'm not sure to had get it (sorry, I must be a bit dense...). Can you >> provide a user case for someone using block lists and another case when >> they're not in use? >> >> > As I understand it, when GRUB is installed in the MBR it installs a bit > more code in the "spare" space between the MBR and the first partition. > This includes code that recognises various file system formats (read > only), so it can work out where "/boot/vmlinux-xxx" is. > > When installed on a partition boot sector it doesn't have that spare > space, so needs to have the location of the kernel/initrd hard-coded in > to it as a list of physical disk blocks. > > If, for any reason the files moved (say you resize the partition > containing /boot, or backup/delete/restore /boot), then that block list > won't match the actual location of the files *unless* you run > update-grub. > > In practice this won't happen very often, if at all. Thanks for the clarification :-) As I use to install the boot loader either into the MBR (in single OS installs) and inside a partition (on "/" instead a separated "/boot") I never noticed any problem. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- 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/ju1km5$5et$1...@dough.gmane.org
