Michael Prokop wrote on 2010-12-13 18:18:
> It's better than not having the option to have grub and lilo both
> installed at the same time at all, IMHO. The fact that iff lilo.conf
> is present lilo will be executed can be documented proberly with an
> according warning in for example the long de
* Joachim Wiedorn [Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:53:48PM +0100]:
> Michael Prokop wrote on 2010-12-13 16:36:
> > update-grub just generates the grub.cfg, the lilo package doesn't
> > execute lilo (and therefore doesn't touch MBR) as long as there's no
> > /etc/lilo.conf. So both packages can and do co-
Michael Prokop wrote on 2010-12-13 16:36:
> update-grub just generates the grub.cfg, the lilo package doesn't
> execute lilo (and therefore doesn't touch MBR) as long as there's no
> /etc/lilo.conf. So both packages can and do co-exist.
Thank for more information - and also thanks to Colin.
I o
* Joachim Wiedorn [Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:00:04PM +0100]:
> Michael Prokop wrote on 2010-12-13 11:11:
> > Now version 1:22.8-9 introduces:
> > Conflicts: grub-legacy, grub-pc
> > I don't see any reason why this should be enforced, actually this
> > avoids deployments of systems where users c
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 04:00:04PM +0100, Joachim Wiedorn wrote:
> Michael Prokop wrote on 2010-12-13 11:11:
> > Now version 1:22.8-9 introduces:
> >
> > Conflicts: grub-legacy, grub-pc
> >
> > I don't see any reason why this should be enforced, actually this
> > avoids deployments of systems
Michael Prokop wrote on 2010-12-13 11:11:
> Now version 1:22.8-9 introduces:
>
> Conflicts: grub-legacy, grub-pc
>
> I don't see any reason why this should be enforced, actually this
> avoids deployments of systems where users can choose between lilo
> and grub as bootloader as both can't be
6 matches
Mail list logo
