From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D35B139083 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 88610E0FD9; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:22:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost03a.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost03a.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 272C5E0FAB for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:22:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=peak.localnet) by smarthost03a.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1eMx4J-0003oQ-8u for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 14:22:31 +0000 From: Peter Humphrey To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] grub-0.97-r16 and profile 17.0 change Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 14:22:30 +0000 Message-ID: <2039504.HaU7QUVC4l@peak> In-Reply-To: References: <1955971.eH3XJlyHHK@dell_xps> <2212379.l0OfTGrFQ4@peak> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Originating-smarthost03a-IP: [82.69.80.10] Feedback-ID: 82.69.80.10 X-Archives-Salt: 71be1a8d-bfb1-4ac1-92fa-3f09ad49739a X-Archives-Hash: efb1cf1e0bd306a9554b9cb854cc201a On Thursday, 7 December 2017 12:04:08 GMT Kai Peter wrote: > On 2017-12-06 13:28, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Sunday, 3 December 2017 15:12:21 GMT Mick wrote: > >> On 03-12-2017 ,10:57:33, Peter Humphrey wrote: --->8 > > Sys-boot/grub-0.97-r17 compiled and installed all right, as a package, > > but when I went to install it to the MBR I got an error complaining of a > > mismatch or corruption in stage X. The wording was something like that, > > and I forget the value of X. There was no mention of disk space, and the > > boot partition is 2GB, so I think it's something else. > > > > Installing sys-boot/grub-static-0.97-r12 instead went smoothly, so I've > > left it like that for the moment. > > > > Does the team think I should go back to grub-0.97-r17, take proper > > records and file a bug report? > > I question if this makes sense for a masked ebuild. Masked? Not here, it isn't. > I'm curious about what was discussed until now. The issue seems to be > quite simple to solve. > > The build fails but portage/gcc does give clear info in this case: the > option "-nopie" have to be changed to "-no-pie". This option is set in > 860_all_grub-0.97-pie.patch. Here is a diff: --->8 Yes, this has been made clear already, but it's not the problem I had. > Maybe the easiest way is to create a new grub-patches package, but there > are other ways to change this too. I'm expected the upstream will change > this soon - within the remaining 5 weeks ;-). > > Another thing is I question that grub-legacy have to be rebuild at all. > I'm pretty sure it is save to remove it from the world file or comment > it out. Then the first emerge -c will remove it from the system. > Anyhow, upgrading to grub2 is IMHO the right way. There are some > examples given in parallel threads how to write a grub.cfg by hand - and > keep it simple :-). Then nothing else then the grub2 binary and > grub2-install is required usually. Long-standing readers may remember that I have reasons for avoiding grub-2. I still think it's a monstrosity and I'd much prefer never to have to wrestle with it again. On the other hand, I suppose I could have another go at writing my own grub.cfg, just for the one little Atom box, if only for a quiet life. -- Regards, Peter.