On 09/28/2010 11:15 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:58:31PM +0200, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' > Serbinenko wrote: > >> On 09/28/2010 10:07 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:43:25PM +0200, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' >>> Serbinenko wrote: >>> >>> >>>> GPT has new types. >>>> >>>> >>> GPT has an msdos partition type for itself for use in hybrid setups. >>> I know GPT partition tables have new types, but GPT itself has a type >>> reserved in the old dos partition table. >>> >>> >> You probably mean the 0xee type. But it's used only to mark the whole >> space as used. In our case it's a partition which is identified to have >> all the data deleted. Let's just take a famous collision between Solaris >> and Linux swap. I doubt that any of them willingly choose the type in >> order to collide with other. If Linux relied solely on the partition >> type to identify its swap it would be a disaster for dual-boot system. >> > > Certainly true. Now there clearly are unused types. Rather "not widely known to be used". > On the other > hand given the lack of partition entries in the first place, needing a > partition isn't very convinient at all. I never said "replace current method with another one" but "add another one as an option" > It might be a nice option to > support though. Of course I doubt anything prevents the user of a > partition for grub already, given you could use an MBR that just goes > to the active partition (ie: standard DOS/Windows behaviour), and then > have grub be on that active partition, whatever the type may be. > > You confuse /boot and embedding. >> Destroying the data which is on its rightful place is bad independently >> what you use the place for, how important your usage is or how >> "unimportant" you judge the current occupant. >> > Well grub should only install where someone tells it to. > > You confuse again. Where boot code goes is specificied on command line. Embedding zone is chosed in function of partition map. See "Re: [grub-setup] New procedure to choose the embedding area" on 09/15/2010 10:11 PM +0200 >> I believe it's possible to have something something much more reliable. >> We could have a tool grub-mkembed (analog of mkswap) which would mark >> the partition as available for GRUB embedding (perhaps in addition of >> checking type). This signature must be written in a way to be >> overwritten when formatted in known filesystems >> > Not sure you can pick a place and be certain all filesystems will > overwrite it on format. You can try, but it won't always work. > > We can put multiple signatures. >>>> GRUB has a design principle of being cross-platform installable. >>>> Moreover the same disk can contain multiple grub installation. I >>>> personally regularly move the disk between yeeloong and amd64 laptop, >>>> well it has only one GRUB since on yeeloong my GRUB is in flash but it >>>> could easily have one on disk too. >>>> >>>> >>> If two architectures expect sector 0 to contain boot code, then that >>> can't work. I certainly would not consider that a worthy design goal >>> compared to lots of other things. >>> >>> >>> >> Some architestures are incompatible because of such reasons but many >> others don't conflict in such ways. >> When you abandon a design goal or give an exception you first have to >> make sure that there is no way to reconcile the given features. >> > Nice to support if possible, although given how short on partitions you > are already with msdos partitions is really seems futile. > > Logical partitions are fine for most platforms. >> Just one example: I'm ready to give an exception to multiterm design in >> order to get the features required for ubuntu CDs but first I discussed >> in order to find compromise which would result in less mess on codepath >> intersections and it looks like there is actually one. >> In this case taking PReP partition type would be unfounded. >> > Well I think using a partition at all in the case of the msdos partition > table is a huge inconvinience to people, and I suspect many won't be > able to. > > it has become annoyingly common to see: > > System restore partition > Windows System partition > Windows partition > > That leaves one primary partition on a typical system these days. So to > make more than one partition, that one has to be extended. Now where > can grub go? > > Logical partition for embedding is fine too. > If the system maker had been nice, they would have used GPT instead and > those 3 partitions would not have been a problem. But of course windows > doesn't know how to boot from GPT on a normal BIOS based system (unlike > most other OSs that have no such problem). > see "gptsync" > If people are dual booting, using the track 0 area may be a bad thing. > Unfortunately people that a dual booting are most likely to have partition > limitations making it the only option that works. > > s,people dualbooting, people having crapware + some other cases.
-- Regards Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
