Re: boot.img Fix

2009-07-14 Thread Robert Millan
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 09:30:01AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > Quoting Robert Millan : > >> I agree GRUB should be very careful not to destroy potentially valuable >> data. However, that's not to say FAT install is important. Typically >> our install doesn't collide or interfere with any filesys

Re: boot.img Fix

2009-07-12 Thread Pavel Roskin
Quoting Robert Millan : I agree GRUB should be very careful not to destroy potentially valuable data. However, that's not to say FAT install is important. Typically our install doesn't collide or interfere with any filesystem, it's only a few corner cases that do, and IMO we should try to disc

Re: boot.img Fix

2009-07-10 Thread Robert Millan
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 01:09:20AM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > Sorry for posting some not very-related ideas in one mail and > top-posting but I want to go to bed ASAP now. FAT install is > important. A friend asked me on RMLL to install GRUB on his > partionless SD card. This car

Re: boot.img Fix

2009-07-08 Thread Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
Sorry for posting some not very-related ideas in one mail and top-posting but I want to go to bed ASAP now. FAT install is important. A friend asked me on RMLL to install GRUB on his partionless SD card. This card was formatted with Symbian and contained no "FAT32" string. I actually see no reason

Re: boot.img Fix

2009-07-08 Thread Yves BLUSSEAU
Pavel Roskin a écrit : On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 10:08 +0200, Yves BLUSSEAU wrote: Hi, there is a "bug" in boot.img: if you install the boot.img into the volume boot sector of a FAT32 partition instead of MBR (i know it's a bad idea), you "destroyed" the partition (even grub will no

Re: boot.img Fix

2009-07-07 Thread Pavel Roskin
Quoting Pavel Roskin : * change the minor version of the GRUB_BOOT_VERSION 4.0 => 4.1 I don't see where it's checked. What's the effect of the change? P.S. I think eventually grub-setup should learn to use ELF images. Then the boot version could be a discardable constant, and the l

Re: boot.img Fix

2009-07-07 Thread Pavel Roskin
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 10:08 +0200, Yves BLUSSEAU wrote: > Hi, > > there is a "bug" in boot.img: if you install the boot.img into the > volume boot sector of a FAT32 partition instead of MBR (i know it's a > bad idea), you "destroyed" the partition (even grub will not recognize it). I think a mu