On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 09:20 +0200, Markus Hitter wrote: > Am 10.06.2009 um 21:44 schrieb Lars Wirzenius: > > > ke, 2009-06-10 kello 15:21 -0400, John Moser kirjoitti: > >> Every argument for putting Grub or the kernel on a separate partition > >> has been based around the idea that these files are somehow more > >> important than, say, /bin/sh > > > > Putting the kernel (i.e., /boot) on a separate partition is often > > mandated by the BIOS not being able to read all of a large hard > > disk. I > > have a motherboard from 2008 that has that problem, so it's not > > ancient > > history, either. > > Additionally, if you have more than one installation of Ubuntu on the > same platter, you really want to share /boot with both installations. > > Not doing so means two /boot's, while you can address only one of > those in the master boot record. As /boot also contains kernels, you > end up booting grub from one partition and the kernel from the other > partition. Kernel install scripts can't deal with such a situation, > you end up sync'ing those two /boots manually after each update of > one of the kernels. > Kind of. I don't have separate /boot partitions for my Karmic, Jaunty, & Squeeze installs - grub2 + os-prober makes this work pretty well, but it does require running update-grub2 in the Karmic install to update the master grub.cfg.
It's a bit of a trade-off, really. Not sharing /boot means a manual step for non-Karmic kernel ABI updates, sharing /boot in my experience results in contention for menu.lst. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
