2013/2/19 Chris Murphy :
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:02 PM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
>
>>
>> Chainloading is actually the only sane way to do multiboot. While it
>> may have started due to BIOS limitations, today chainloading is simply
>> passing control to another bootloader.
>
> If a system has on
Chris,
> Effectively you're asking for indefinitely supporting GRUB 0.9, by requiring
> other dependencies so that can happen.
The only other dependency I am asking for is the ability for the distro
boot loader to be installed in the root or boot partition. That's not much.
The biggest argument
Committed, thanks. Sorry for delay.
On 30.01.2013 20:21, Paulo Flabiano Smorigo/Brazil/IBM wrote:
> === modified file 'ChangeLog'
> --- ChangeLog 2013-01-27 15:17:21 +
> +++ ChangeLog 2013-01-28 16:39:41 +
> @@ -1,3 +1,15 @@
> +2013-01-28 Paulo Flabiano Smorigo
> +
> + Support Openf
On 19.02.2013 09:43, Michael Chang wrote:
> They could still booting to other distribution via
> togging the active flag and perform the rescue of data.
If they have the ability to toggle this flag, why don't they have the
ability to simply reinstall bootloader?
signature.asc
Description: Ope
I haven't gone through this whole thread yet but this is one of problems
with blocklist installs:
Suppose blocklist changes because of e.g. user mistake. Yet at the old
location there is still the old core.img. For the time being. So this
problem may go unnoticed for years yet if someone has the ab
Andrey,
> I think this is simply the wrong question for upstream. The primary
> consideration is, what happens inside filesystem is outside of grub
> scope, so grub simply cannot commit itself to saying "it's fine and we
> support it everywhere". Because grub has no control over what happens.
But
Vladimir,
thanks for your thoughtful answer. I understand your concerns better now.
On 02/19/2013 10:37 AM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> Suppose blocklist changes because of e.g. user mistake. Yet at the old
> location there is still the old core.img. For the time being. So thi
hi:)
If booting from geub , how to know the address where the grub loads bootsect
and setup to ?
thanks!
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
On 19.02.2013 13:58, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Vladimir,
>
> thanks for your thoughtful answer. I understand your concerns better now.
>
> On 02/19/2013 10:37 AM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>
>> Suppose blocklist changes because of e.g. user mistake. Yet at the old
>> location the
Variable `off' was never incremented so down arrow was always
printed, even when we have scrolled to the end of entry.
Signed-off-by: Andrey Borzenkov
---
ChangeLog |5 +
grub-core/normal/menu_entry.c |3 +--
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff
When appending string at the end, there is nothing to shift down and
(screen->line + 2) points beyond allocated array.
Signed-off-by: Andrey Borzenkov
---
ChangeLog |5 +
grub-core/normal/menu_entry.c | 11 ++-
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions
>> Am I understanding correctly that the user mistake you describe must be
>> some manipulation of "core.img" itself (e.g. running grub2-mkimage but
>> now grub2-setup, which would classify as "mistake" in a blocklist setup)?
>
> Yes. Such kind of mistakes. Or deleting GRUB and restoring it from b
On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:43 AM, Michael Chang wrote:
> 2013/2/19 Chris Murphy :
>>
>> It's also untrue. GRUB can first load a grub.cfg pointing to the grub.cfg of
>> each distribution; those distribution specific grub.cfg's are updated by
>> those distributions. The first grub.cfg only needs upd
On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Martin Wilck wrote:
> Chris,
>
>> Effectively you're asking for indefinitely supporting GRUB 0.9, by requiring
>> other dependencies so that can happen.
>
> The only other dependency I am asking for is the ability for the distro
> boot loader to be installed in th
On 02/18/13 21:39, Reindl Harald wrote:
[…]
> i would be thankful if even "grub2-mkconfig" would not create
> this "advanced" submenu at all
>
Actually there is a patch proposal at 'grub-devel' by Prarit Bhargava,
for such a case - disable submenu[1][2].
>From this I made two for testing dire
On 02/19/2013 07:56 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> The biggest argument for Fedora not being able to do this has been the
>> claimed danger of block list corruption.
> The biggest argument is:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872826#c10
Sorry, I see nothing in that comment that I'd call
Am 19.02.2013 21:31, schrieb poma:
> On 02/18/13 21:39, Reindl Harald wrote:
> […]
>
>> i would be thankful if even "grub2-mkconfig" would not create
>> this "advanced" submenu at all
>>
> Actually there is a patch proposal at 'grub-devel' by Prarit Bhargava,
> for such a case - disable submenu[
17 matches
Mail list logo
