On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 22:37 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:42:21 +0000 (UTC) > Hendrik Boom <hend...@topoi.pooq.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 23:25:03 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > > On Vi, 14 sep 12, 17:12:38, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > >> > > >> Of course, after I've made my copy (with slight changes > > >> to /etc/fstab) I have two nearly identical sets of partitions, so > > >> it may be tricky to tell them apart. Is grub2 clever enough to > > >> figure it all out anyway? And what data does it use to this end? > > >> (so I can make sure it's right!) > > > > > > UUIDs? What failure mode(s) do you have in mind, because I can't > > > think of any. > > > > It probably is os-prober that I mean. The misconfiguration I have in > > mind is matching one system's /boot with another systems's /. I've > > had it happen on a laptop sometime ago. and it sure messed up my > > upgrades. I have no idea how it happened, but it has made me > > paranoid. > > > > The problem is that update-grub rewrites /boot/grub/grub.cfg. It may be > possible to specify roots and boots in /etc/grub.d/ (I do use a > separate /boot, but I've never needed to try this) or alternatively it > is perfectly possible to edit grub.cfg, but you need to remember to do > so each time update-grub is run, before rebooting. More than once, I've > known versions of grub not deal correctly with a separate /boot, so > I've had to do this until the bug was fixed. > > Both update-grub and grub-mkconfig (which it calls) are scripts and > possibly some kind of user warning could be appended to one of them. > > Or perhaps if the backup copy were made to a second hard drive (trickier > with a laptop) then os-prober could be trusted not to mix roots and > boots between drives.
Excepted of LVM usage separated partitions for /boot IMO don't make sense. However, isn't there information in /boot, to what / it belongs? I wonder if the updater at least checks, if the modules in /lib belong to a kernel of the same version, which wouldn't be a protection, if different installs should use kernels of the same version. I don't use the updater, but I suspect that it can be set up to take care about what belongs to each other. OTOH on my computer the updater seems to take car about backups of fstabs or what ever, since it will add Linux that are deleted from my computer a long time ago. A long time ago I switched back to GRUB legacy and I always edit(ed) menu.lst und grub.cfg manually. Would be syslinux better for the OP? I never used syslinux. Regards, Ralf -- 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/1347661237.1276.40.camel@localhost.localdomain
