[gentoo-user] keeping grub 1

[gentoo-user] keeping grub 1

[James]

Hello,


So on one particular (openrc) system, I have no interest in grub-2
or any other bootloaders. I see grub is both grub 1 and grub 2.

If I just unmerge grub and emerge grub-static, is that the
best way to prevent grub-2 from ever being installed?
Other caveats to worry about?


TIA,
James

Re: [gentoo-user] keeping grub 1

[Florian Gamböck]

Hi James!

Am 25.08.2015 um 20:44 schrieb James:
> If I just unmerge grub and emerge grub-static, is that the
> best way to prevent grub-2 from ever being installed?

If you want to keep your good old sys-boot/grub:0, just put exactly that 
into your world file, including with the slot-version (the :0 at the 
end). At least in the "main" portage tree, grub-2 uses slot 2, whereas 
grub-1 stays in slot 0.

Alternatively you could put something like >=sys-boot/grub-2 or even 
sys-boot/grub:2 into package.mask.

HTH,
--Flo

Re: [gentoo-user] keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 9:01:48 PM Florian Gamböck wrote:
> Hi James!
> 
> Am 25.08.2015 um 20:44 schrieb James:
> > If I just unmerge grub and emerge grub-static, is that the
> > best way to prevent grub-2 from ever being installed?
> 
> If you want to keep your good old sys-boot/grub:0, just put exactly that 
> into your world file, including with the slot-version (the :0 at the 
> end). At least in the "main" portage tree, grub-2 uses slot 2, whereas 
> grub-1 stays in slot 0.
> 
> Alternatively you could put something like >=sys-boot/grub-2 or even 
> sys-boot/grub:2 into package.mask.
> 
> HTH,
> --Flo

And since you can install both it may be a good idea to get legacy grub 
working before unmerging grub2. If something goes wrong you just need to 
chroot and run grub2-install (or whatever it's called).

The grub-static package is most useful for amd64 systems without a 32-bit 
ncurses. I believe it ships a prebuilt ncurses static library.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] keeping grub 1

[Alan McKinnon]

On 25/08/2015 20:44, James wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 
> So on one particular (openrc) system, I have no interest in grub-2
> or any other bootloaders. I see grub is both grub 1 and grub 2.
> 
> If I just unmerge grub and emerge grub-static, is that the
> best way to prevent grub-2 from ever being installed?
> Other caveats to worry about?
> 
> 
> TIA,
> James
> 
> 


Add to package.mask:

sys-boot/grub:2

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 385 bytes --]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:44:17 +0000 (UTC), James wrote:

> If I just unmerge grub and emerge grub-static, is that the
> best way to prevent grub-2 from ever being installed?
> Other caveats to worry about?

emerge -n sys-boot/grub:0 and make sure no other grub entries appear in
@world


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Bookmark - A means of returning to where you got lost last time.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: keeping grub 1

[James]

Neil Bothwick <neil <at> digimed.co.uk> writes:


> > If I just unmerge grub and emerge grub-static, is that the
> > best way to prevent grub-2 from ever being installed?
> > Other caveats to worry about?


OK, so before anyone responded, I just masked the relevant
versions of grub2 in package.mask.


=sys-boot/grub-2.02_beta2-r7
=sys-boot/grub-2.02_beta2-r3
=sys-boot/grub-2.00_p5107-r2

> emerge -n sys-boot/grub:0 and make sure no other grub entries appear in
>  <at> world


I added the generic grub2 to the package.mask

sys-boot/grub:2 

It's all good now. I'm ignoring grub-static.
grub-0.97.r14 seems fine.


thx (everyone),
James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: keeping grub 1

[Dale]

James wrote:
> Neil Bothwick <neil <at> digimed.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>>> If I just unmerge grub and emerge grub-static, is that the
>>> best way to prevent grub-2 from ever being installed?
>>> Other caveats to worry about?
>
> OK, so before anyone responded, I just masked the relevant
> versions of grub2 in package.mask.
>
>
> =sys-boot/grub-2.02_beta2-r7
> =sys-boot/grub-2.02_beta2-r3
> =sys-boot/grub-2.00_p5107-r2
>
>> emerge -n sys-boot/grub:0 and make sure no other grub entries appear in
>>  <at> world
>
> I added the generic grub2 to the package.mask
>
> sys-boot/grub:2 
>
> It's all good now. I'm ignoring grub-static.
> grub-0.97.r14 seems fine.
>
>
> thx (everyone),
> James
>

To be sure, I'd take the lowest version and put a >= in front.  Based on
what I get here, it should look like this in the mask file:

>=sys-boot/grub-2.00_p5107-r2 

That way you don't have to worry about the new version that may come
later, and if the old grub gets removed from the tree. 

Hope that helps.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 925 bytes --]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:46:32 -0500, Dale wrote:

> >> emerge -n sys-boot/grub:0 and make sure no other grub entries appear
> >> in <at> world  
> >
> > I added the generic grub2 to the package.mask
> >
> > sys-boot/grub:2 
> >
> > It's all good now. I'm ignoring grub-static.
> > grub-0.97.r14 seems fine.
> >
> >
> > thx (everyone),
> > James
> >  
> 
> To be sure, I'd take the lowest version and put a >= in front.  Based on
> what I get here, it should look like this in the mask file:
> 
> >=sys-boot/grub-2.00_p5107-r2   
> 
> That way you don't have to worry about the new version that may come
> later, and if the old grub gets removed from the tree. 

you don't need to mask anything, just tell portage what you want rather
than what you don't want. Tell it you want slot 0 and that's what you'll
get.



-- 
Neil Bothwick

"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[James]

James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> writes:


> So on one particular (openrc) system, I have no interest in grub-2
> or any other bootloaders. I see grub is both grub 1 and grub 2.

So some vintage installs/upgrades got me thinking. What does Grub-2
offer that grub-1 does not. I cannot think of anything that I need
from Grub-2 not mbr, nor efi board booting. Not dual/multi booting
as grub-1 excels on that, and not on drives larger than 2 T.


So what is the (hardware scenario)  where grub-2 and it's problems
are superior to grub-1?  I'm having trouble thinking of that
situation.......?


James

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Alec Ten Harmsel]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:10:55PM +0000, James wrote:
> James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> 
> 
> > So on one particular (openrc) system, I have no interest in grub-2
> > or any other bootloaders. I see grub is both grub 1 and grub 2.
> 
> So some vintage installs/upgrades got me thinking. What does Grub-2
> offer that grub-1 does not. I cannot think of anything that I need
> from Grub-2 not mbr, nor efi board booting. Not dual/multi booting
> as grub-1 excels on that, and not on drives larger than 2 T.
> 
> 
> So what is the (hardware scenario)  where grub-2 and it's problems
> are superior to grub-1?  I'm having trouble thinking of that
> situation.......?

64-bit hardware with the no-multilib profile[1]. I have no "-bin" packages
on my system, nor do I run any pre-built 3rd party applications, so I
waste no time compiling worthless 32-bit libraries. Therefore, I need
grub 2.

Alec

1.
> emerge -p grub:0
>
> ....
>
> AMD64 Team; <amd64@gentoo.org>
> grub-1 is not available on no-multilib profiles;

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[James]

Alec Ten Harmsel <alec <at> alectenharmsel.com> writes:

> > So some vintage installs/upgrades got me thinking. What does Grub-2
> > offer that grub-1 does not. I cannot think of anything that I need
> > from Grub-2 not mbr, nor efi board booting. Not dual/multi booting
> > as grub-1 excels on that, and not on drives larger than 2 T.

> > So what is the (hardware scenario)  where grub-2 and it's problems
> > are superior to grub-1?  I'm having trouble thinking of that
> > situation.......?

> 64-bit hardware with the no-multilib profile[1]. I have no "-bin" packages
> on my system, nor do I run any pre-built 3rd party applications, so I
> waste no time compiling worthless 32-bit libraries. Therefore, I need
> grub 2.

Ok this is interesting. Is this only an AMD64 thing? On Arm64 you'd
most likely want to run 32 bit binaries. This is profile [11} right?

  default/linux/amd64/13.0/no-multilib

I'm OK with this, but what is the benefit of such profile selection::
curiously I have no experience with the profile selection, despite
running quite a few amd64 system. What would the benefits be 
running this profile on older amd64 hardware ?


> > AMD64 Team; <amd64 <at> gentoo.org>
> > grub-1 is not available on no-multilib profiles;

I had not seen this, but so I guess this is well documented......?
Does that profile selection prevent one from selecting grub-1 during
and installation?

OFF TOPIC
On another note: have you seen spark-1.5 ? Cleaner build?
http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/Fwd-ANNOUNCE-Spark-1-5-0-preview-package-td13683.html
..............................................................


James 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Alec Ten Harmsel]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:48:12PM +0000, James wrote:
> Alec Ten Harmsel <alec <at> alectenharmsel.com> writes:
> > 64-bit hardware with the no-multilib profile[1]. I have no "-bin" packages
> > on my system, nor do I run any pre-built 3rd party applications, so I
> > waste no time compiling worthless 32-bit libraries. Therefore, I need
> > grub 2.
> 
> Ok this is interesting. Is this only an AMD64 thing? On Arm64 you'd
> most likely want to run 32 bit binaries.

I don't know anything about arm64, but if it is 64-bit, why would you
need 32-bit binaries?

> This is profile [11} right?
> 
>   default/linux/amd64/13.0/no-multilib

Yes.

> I'm OK with this, but what is the benefit of such profile selection::
> curiously I have no experience with the profile selection, despite
> running quite a few amd64 system. What would the benefits be 
> running this profile on older amd64 hardware ?

The main benefit is reduced compile times for some packages since I only
compile the 64-bit versions, less stuff on the filesystem, etc. If you
do not run any applications that use a 32-bit version of a library, that
library is taking up disk space and compile time, but is never used.

I also am a bit of a purist, and just run no-multilib because it is
emotionally satisfying.

> > > AMD64 Team; <amd64 <at> gentoo.org>
> > > grub-1 is not available on no-multilib profiles;
> 
> I had not seen this, but so I guess this is well documented......?
> Does that profile selection prevent one from selecting grub-1 during
> and installation?

Yes, although just now was the first time I ever tried installing
grub-1.

> OFF TOPIC
> On another note: have you seen spark-1.5 ? Cleaner build?
> http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/Fwd-ANNOUNCE-Spark-1-5-0-preview-package-td13683.html
> ..............................................................

I haven't looked at the new features of 1.5 specifically, but I know
that the build process is basically the same. The API is nice, but it is
definitely possible to write a faster job using Hadoop's API since it is
lower-level and can be optimized more, so I spend more time writing jobs
using Hadoop's API.

Alec

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[James]

Alec Ten Harmsel <alec <at> alectenharmsel.com> writes:


> I don't know anything about arm64, but if it is 64-bit, why would you
> need 32-bit binaries?

An enormous codebase that is not likely to get ported to 64 bit arm.
Easy (embedded) product migration to arm64.

also, arm64 supports big indian and little indian codes simultaneously.

> I also am a bit of a purist, and just run no-multilib because it is
> emotionally satisfying.

Naw. Your teasing?  (wink wink nudge nudge).....


> > OFF TOPIC
> > On another note: have you seen spark-1.5 ? Cleaner build?
> >
http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/Fwd-ANNOUNCE-Spark-1-5-0-preview-package-td13683.html

> I haven't looked at the new features of 1.5 specifically, but I know
> that the build process is basically the same. The API is nice, but it is
> definitely possible to write a faster job using Hadoop's API since it is
> lower-level and can be optimized more, so I spend more time writing jobs
> using Hadoop's API.

I've read that building spark-1.5 from sources is much cleaner now.
bgo-523412. (your on the cc list?). Particularly parsing out
hadoop support, for more focus regression testing on bare metal
setups....  Drop me a line when you install 1.5 at work and how it
runs with Hadoop.


hth,
James

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-26, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Alec Ten Harmsel <alec <at> alectenharmsel.com> writes:
>
>> > So some vintage installs/upgrades got me thinking. What does Grub-2
>> > offer that grub-1 does not. I cannot think of anything that I need
>> > from Grub-2 not mbr, nor efi board booting. Not dual/multi booting
>> > as grub-1 excels on that, and not on drives larger than 2 T.
>
>> > So what is the (hardware scenario)  where grub-2 and it's problems
>> > are superior to grub-1?  I'm having trouble thinking of that
>> > situation.......?
>
>> 64-bit hardware with the no-multilib profile[1]. I have no "-bin" packages
>> on my system, nor do I run any pre-built 3rd party applications, so I
>> waste no time compiling worthless 32-bit libraries. Therefore, I need
>> grub 2.
>
> Ok this is interesting. Is this only an AMD64 thing?

Yep.  In theory the same thing could come up with respect to 64/32 bit
SPARC or something, but in practice it's ARM64

> On Arm64 you'd most likely want to run 32 bit binaries.

Some people do.  Some people don't

> I'm OK with this, but what is the benefit of such profile selection::
> curiously I have no experience with the profile selection, despite
> running quite a few amd64 system. What would the benefits be 
> running this profile on older amd64 hardware ?

The main benefit of ARM64 w/o 32-bit libs is that you can't run acroread.

;)

If only evince could "print current view", I could ditch acroread...

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! What I need is a
                                  at               MATURE RELATIONSHIP with a
                              gmail.com            FLOPPY DISK ...

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 3:10:55 PM James wrote:
> James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> 
> 
> > So on one particular (openrc) system, I have no interest in grub-2
> > or any other bootloaders. I see grub is both grub 1 and grub 2.
> 
> So some vintage installs/upgrades got me thinking. What does Grub-2
> offer that grub-1 does not. I cannot think of anything that I need
> from Grub-2 not mbr, nor efi board booting. Not dual/multi booting
> as grub-1 excels on that, and not on drives larger than 2 T.
> 
> 
> So what is the (hardware scenario)  where grub-2 and it's problems
> are superior to grub-1?  I'm having trouble thinking of that
> situation.......?
> 
> 
> James

This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some extent with 
legacy grub:

1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use grub-
static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures.
2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages model it 
uses a core image and a bunch of modules.
3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks.
4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices.
5. Graphics and theming support.
6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is scriptable 
using a shell-like script language.
7. Password support for each entry.


-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Jeremi Piotrowski]

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote:

> The main benefit is reduced compile times for some packages since I only
> compile the 64-bit versions, less stuff on the filesystem, etc. If you
> do not run any applications that use a 32-bit version of a library, that
> library is taking up disk space and compile time, but is never used.

The multilib profiles do not enable ABI_X86="32" by default so the default
setup is to only build the 64-bit versions of everything. These profiles
give you the _option_ to build both 32-bit and 64-bit things.

The only things multilib by default on a multlib profile are pretty much
glibc and gcc.

> I also am a bit of a purist, and just run no-multilib because it is
> emotionally satisfying.

The above reasons would make emotional satisfaction and purity the only
reasons to go down this road. Doesn't mean they're not valid :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :

> This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some extent with
> legacy grub:
>
> 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use grub-
> static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures.
> 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages model it
> uses a core image and a bunch of modules.
> 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks.
> 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices.
> 5. Graphics and theming support.
> 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is scriptable
> using a shell-like script language.
> 7. Password support for each entry.
>
>

I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is unacceptable.

Michel

-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 6:27:14 PM Michel Catudal wrote:
> Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
> 
> > This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some extent 
with
> > legacy grub:
> >
> > 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use grub-
> > static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures.
> > 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages model 
it
> > uses a core image and a bunch of modules.
> > 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks.
> > 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices.
> > 5. Graphics and theming support.
> > 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is 
scriptable
> > using a shell-like script language.
> > 7. Password support for each entry.
> >
> >
> 
> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition 
and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is 
unacceptable.

Yes and no, at least it can be a pain. I remember running into that and got it 
to work after several hours, unfortunately I forgot how. It may have been that 
it writes to both the mbr and the partition so you can restore the old mbr and 
still boot the partition. It also treats removable media and HDs different. 
It's hard to remember because I tried so many things.

I think dd'ing the mbr to an image file and chainloading it worked but I did 
something else in the end. Next time I go down that road I'll make sure to 
document it.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Mike Gilbert]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
> Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
>
>> This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some extent
>> with
>> legacy grub:
>>
>> 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use grub-
>> static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures.
>> 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages model
>> it
>> uses a core image and a bunch of modules.
>> 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks.
>> 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices.
>> 5. Graphics and theming support.
>> 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is
>> scriptable
>> using a shell-like script language.
>> 7. Password support for each entry.
>>
>>
>
> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition
> and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is
> unacceptable.
>

It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
simply not supported.

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 27 August 2015 08:49:13 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> 
> > I've had serious problems in the past getting [grub2] to install on a
> > partition and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the
> > MBR which is unacceptable.
> 
> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> simply not supported.

So now grub2 is insisting on being the only boot manager present. That doesn't 
sound like the Linux way to me.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition
>> and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is
>> unacceptable.
>
> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> simply not supported.

So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader. 
Bill Gates would be pround.

For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I'm having a BIG BANG
                                  at               THEORY!!
                              gmail.com            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Mike Gilbert]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Grant Edwards
<grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition
>>> and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is
>>> unacceptable.
>>
>> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
>> simply not supported.
>
> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader.
> Bill Gates would be pround.

What a dumb, ignorant comment. Installation to a partition does not
work due to technical limitations, and the grub developers have no
interest in spending time working around them. They don't give a crap
about taking over your PC.

> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

grub can be configured to boot multiple linux distros from a single
config file. Generating said config file can be a bit of work, but
it's definitely doable.

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[James]

Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert <floppym <at> gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal <at>
comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on
> >> a partition  and gave up. Is that bug fixed? 
> >> It insists on installing on the MBR which is unacceptable.

Hmmm. For my purposes (That is creating a PreQualifing Matrix based
on the answers to some questions) it would seem that requiring installation
of Grub on a partition and not the MBR would mean that only Grub-2 can be used.


> > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> > simply not supported.
> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader. 
> Bill Gates would be proud.

Yea there does seem to a lot of that going around. The good news is
there are so many qualified kernel/lowlevel/devicedriver coders
around these days, it's only a matter of time before a serious
fork in the bootloader/kernel world of linux occurs. It just keeps
boiling and roiling, imho. ymmv.


> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit systems,
(u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like btrfs-native
or via lvm?

I'm not challenging what you are saying; I'm trying to figure out what 
everybody is suggestions to publish the first draft of the PreQualifying
Matrix Questions and the resulting valid choices one can infer. Grub 1vs2
is a big part of that matrix.


curiously,
James

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[mcatudal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 846 bytes --]



----- Mail original -----

>It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is 
>simply not supported. 

When a needed functionality is no longer working it is a bug. To have grub installing itself on the MBR when the users doesn't it to is unacceptable because it wipes out the part that loads the bootloader so booting to other operating systems (OS/2, PC Dos, Ecomstation, etc) is no longer possible with a nice bootloader, we are then stuck with grub which is a pain in the ass to setup. 

I want to use grub only for the current Linux that I boot on. 

The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control of the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use to boot Operating systems on my computer? 

Michel 



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1426 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Alan Mackenzie]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:50:15PM +0000, mcatudal@comcast.net wrote:


> ----- Mail original -----

> >It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> >simply not supported. 

> When a needed functionality is no longer working it is a bug. To have
> grub installing itself on the MBR when the users doesn't it to is
> unacceptable because it wipes out the part that loads the bootloader so
> booting to other operating systems (OS/2, PC Dos, Ecomstation, etc) is
> no longer possible with a nice bootloader, we are then stuck with grub
> which is a pain in the ass to setup. 

> I want to use grub only for the current Linux that I boot on. 

> The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like
> Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control
> of the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use
> to boot Operating systems on my computer? 

Just to point out that the unparliamentary language is not going to
contribute towards any solution.  For all we know, some of the relevant
maintainers might be Gentoo users subscribed to this list, and slagging
them off isn't helpful.

There might well be good reasons for the restriction.  Discovering what
they are is more likely to point towards a positive resolution.

> Michel 

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 628 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:19:29 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:

> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

Actually, that's a good scenario for GRUB2. grub2-mkconfig can detect
all Linux installations on a system, not just the running one, so you
only need one GRUB to boot everything. That's why distro installers are
so much better at setting up Linux dual booting these days, because GRUB2
makes it simple for them.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

What do you have when you have six lawyers buried up to their necks in
sand? Not enough sand.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 585 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:50:15 +0000 (UTC), mcatudal@comcast.net wrote:

> The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like
> Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control
> of the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use
> to boot Operating systems on my computer? 

No one is telling you to do anything. You choose which bootloader to
install, if you don't like the choice you made there is only one person
to blame.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

ASSISTANT MANAGER: Feminine form of the word manager (q.v.).

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:49:13 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> 
wrote:
> > Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
> >
> >> This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some extent
> >> with
> >> legacy grub:
> >>
> >> 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use grub-
> >> static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures.
> >> 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages model
> >> it
> >> uses a core image and a bunch of modules.
> >> 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks.
> >> 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices.
> >> 5. Graphics and theming support.
> >> 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is
> >> scriptable
> >> using a shell-like script language.
> >> 7. Password support for each entry.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition
> > and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which 
is
> > unacceptable.
> >
> 
> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> simply not supported.
> 

I just got it to work with these steps:

1. Mount the partition to /mnt/usb
2. Run:

#grub2-install --directory /usr/lib/grub/i386-pc --boot-
directory=/mnt/usb/boot --force /dev/sdb2
Installing for i386-pc platform.
grub2-install: warning: File system `ext2' doesn't support embedding.
grub2-install: warning: Embedding is not possible.  GRUB can only be installed 
in this setup by using blocklists.  However, blocklists are UNRELIABLE and 
their use is discouraged..
Installation finished. No error reported.

3. Set the partition as active with fdisk.

And it booted. To verify that it didn't overwrite the mbr I overwrote it with 
syslinux's mbr as follows:

sudo dd conv=notrunc bs=440 count=1 if=/usr/share/syslinux/mbr.bin of=/dev/sdb

Still boots!





-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:23:56 PM Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:49:13 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> 
> wrote:
> > > Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
> > >
> > >> This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some 
extent
> > >> with
> > >> legacy grub:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use 
grub-
> > >> static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures.
> > >> 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages 
model
> > >> it
> > >> uses a core image and a bunch of modules.
> > >> 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks.
> > >> 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices.
> > >> 5. Graphics and theming support.
> > >> 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually) is
> > >> scriptable
> > >> using a shell-like script language.
> > >> 7. Password support for each entry.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a 
partition
> > > and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which 
> is
> > > unacceptable.
> > >
> > 
> > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> > simply not supported.
> > 
> 
> I just got it to work with these steps:
> 
> 1. Mount the partition to /mnt/usb
> 2. Run:
> 
> #grub2-install --directory /usr/lib/grub/i386-pc --boot-
> directory=/mnt/usb/boot --force /dev/sdb2
> Installing for i386-pc platform.
> grub2-install: warning: File system `ext2' doesn't support embedding.
> grub2-install: warning: Embedding is not possible.  GRUB can only be 
installed 
> in this setup by using blocklists.  However, blocklists are UNRELIABLE and 
> their use is discouraged..
> Installation finished. No error reported.
> 
> 3. Set the partition as active with fdisk.
> 
> And it booted. To verify that it didn't overwrite the mbr I overwrote it 
with 
> syslinux's mbr as follows:
> 
> sudo dd conv=notrunc bs=440 count=1 if=/usr/share/syslinux/mbr.bin 
of=/dev/sdb
> 
> Still boots!

It is a good idea to make all grub2 files in /boot immutable to avoid problems.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2903 bytes --]

On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 19:31:34 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:23:56 PM Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:49:13 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > > Le 2015-08-26 13:37, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
> > > >> This may not be complete and some of these may be possible to some
> 
> extent
> 
> > > >> with
> > > >> legacy grub:
> > > >> 
> > > >> 1. Grub Legacy is 32-bit only, so you need 32-bit libraries or use
> 
> grub-
> 
> > > >> static. Grub2 is portable, even beyond Intel architectures.
> > > >> 2. Grub2 has been rewritten to be modular. Instead of Grub's stages
> 
> model
> 
> > > >> it
> > > >> uses a core image and a bunch of modules.
> > > >> 3. EFI support without chainloading or other hacks.
> > > >> 4. Better filesystem support. Including loopback devices.
> > > >> 5. Graphics and theming support.
> > > >> 6. Grub2's config file (the one it tells you not to edit manually)
> > > >> is scriptable
> > > >> using a shell-like script language.
> > > >> 7. Password support for each entry.
> > > > 
> > > > I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a
> 
> partition
> 
> > > > and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR
> > > > which
> > 
> > is
> > 
> > > > unacceptable.
> > > 
> > > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> > > simply not supported.
> > 
> > I just got it to work with these steps:
> > 
> > 1. Mount the partition to /mnt/usb
> > 2. Run:
> > 
> > #grub2-install --directory /usr/lib/grub/i386-pc --boot-
> > directory=/mnt/usb/boot --force /dev/sdb2
> > Installing for i386-pc platform.
> > grub2-install: warning: File system `ext2' doesn't support embedding.
> > grub2-install: warning: Embedding is not possible.  GRUB can only be
> 
> installed
> 
> > in this setup by using blocklists.  However, blocklists are UNRELIABLE
> > and their use is discouraged..
> > Installation finished. No error reported.
> > 
> > 3. Set the partition as active with fdisk.
> > 
> > And it booted. To verify that it didn't overwrite the mbr I overwrote it
> 
> with
> 
> > syslinux's mbr as follows:
> > 
> > sudo dd conv=notrunc bs=440 count=1 if=/usr/share/syslinux/mbr.bin
> 
> of=/dev/sdb
> 
> > Still boots!
> 
> It is a good idea to make all grub2 files in /boot immutable to avoid
> problems.

You beat me to it.  Yes GRUB2 can be installed on a partition instead of the 
MBR and yes it complains about it.  However, it works regardless.  I have done 
it a couple of times so far, just as you describe above.  In my case I 
chainload GRUB2 with NTLDR or modern equivalent and this is how I know that 
the MBR was not being overwritten by it.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 4:50:15 PM mcatudal@comcast.net wrote:
> The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like 
Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control of the 
PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use to boot 
Operating systems on my computer? 

Who are you to tell them what they should work on? They're acting like FOSS 
developers, many of whom work for free or underpaid so they work on whatever 
the fuck they want. The problem with FOSS is that we have too many idiots that 
like to rant about what they don't like instead of doing something about it. 
If all those energies went to improving the software FOSS would be so much 
better.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-27, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards <at> gmail.com> writes:

>> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
>> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
>
> So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit systems,

I still use it on all my 64-bit machines.

> (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like btrfs-native
> or via lvm?

I haven't started using UEFI boot mode mode yet, so I don't know how
thetwo grub's compare.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! ... I have read the
                                  at               INSTRUCTIONS ...
                              gmail.com            

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-27, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:

> You beat me to it.  Yes GRUB2 can be installed on a partition instead
> of the MBR and yes it complains about it. However, it works
> regardless. 

I know it has worked in the past, and I know that recent versions of
some distros that use Grub2 still allow you to pick a partition for
the bootloader during the install.

> I have done it a couple of times so far, just as you describe above.
> In my case I chainload GRUB2 with NTLDR or modern equivalent and this
> is how I know that the MBR was not being overwritten by it.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I'm dressing up in
                                  at               an ill-fitting IVY-LEAGUE
                              gmail.com            SUIT!!  Too late...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 979 bytes --]

On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 20:30:17 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2015-08-27, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> >> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> > 
> > So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> > grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit systems,
> 
> I still use it on all my 64-bit machines.
> 
> > (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like
> > btrfs-native or via lvm?
> 
> I haven't started using UEFI boot mode mode yet, so I don't know how
> thetwo grub's compare.

UEFI do not need GRUB{1,2} or any other boot manager.  They can boot any 
kernel you drop in the EFI boot partition directly, as long as you set it up 
so.  It becomes cumbersome if you are planning to multiboot various kernels & 
OS frequently.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 4:47:30 PM James wrote:
> Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > 
> > On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert <floppym <at> gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal <at>
> comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on
> > >> a partition  and gave up. Is that bug fixed? 
> > >> It insists on installing on the MBR which is unacceptable.
> 
> Hmmm. For my purposes (That is creating a PreQualifing Matrix based
> on the answers to some questions) it would seem that requiring installation
> of Grub on a partition and not the MBR would mean that only Grub-2 can be 
used.
> 
> 
> > > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> > > simply not supported.
> > So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader. 
> > Bill Gates would be proud.
> 
> Yea there does seem to a lot of that going around. The good news is
> there are so many qualified kernel/lowlevel/devicedriver coders
> around these days, it's only a matter of time before a serious
> fork in the bootloader/kernel world of linux occurs. It just keeps
> boiling and roiling, imho. ymmv.
> 
> 
> > For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> > pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> 
> So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit systems,
> (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like btrfs-native
> or via lvm?

An EFI 64-bit kernel can only be loaded by a 64-bit EFI bootloader. With Linux 
I think it doesn't matter because I think even with the EFI stub you get a 
hybrid kernel that can be booted by a regular bootloader, but things like the 
EFI framebuffer driver and efivars will not work unless you boot in EFI mode.

You can chainload an efi bootloader with grub1 but I think that only emulates 
EFI, so these things may still not work. And I don't think that's officially 
supported anymore because there's grub2 for that purpose.

> I'm not challenging what you are saying; I'm trying to figure out what 
> everybody is suggestions to publish the first draft of the PreQualifying
> Matrix Questions and the resulting valid choices one can infer. Grub 1vs2
> is a big part of that matrix.
> 
> 
> curiously,
> James
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:44:07 PM Mick wrote:
> On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 20:30:17 Grant Edwards wrote:
> > On 2015-08-27, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > >> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> > >> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> > > 
> > > So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> > > grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit systems,
> > 
> > I still use it on all my 64-bit machines.
> > 
> > > (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like
> > > btrfs-native or via lvm?
> > 
> > I haven't started using UEFI boot mode mode yet, so I don't know how
> > thetwo grub's compare.
> 
> UEFI do not need GRUB{1,2} or any other boot manager.  They can boot any 
> kernel you drop in the EFI boot partition directly, as long as you set it up 
> so.  It becomes cumbersome if you are planning to multiboot various kernels 
& 
> OS frequently.

You do need a manager like efibootmgr unless you have a really good "bios" menu 
where you can manage your entries. Only removable media is autodetected on all 
EFI boxes I've seen. I use GRUB2 because my efi firmware (like most) is really 
buggy. Changing the boot order doesn't work at all (neither on the menu nor 
through efibootmgr), so I have to delete and recreate the entries in the right 
order. What I did is create 2 efi entries, one for my main kernel and one for 
grub2 and I added entries for all my secondary kernels and windows on the 
grub2 menu.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2004 bytes --]

On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 21:03:19 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:44:07 PM Mick wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 20:30:17 Grant Edwards wrote:
> > > On 2015-08-27, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > > >> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's
> > > >> a pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> > > > 
> > > > So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> > > > grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit
> > > > systems,
> > > 
> > > I still use it on all my 64-bit machines.
> > > 
> > > > (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like
> > > > btrfs-native or via lvm?
> > > 
> > > I haven't started using UEFI boot mode mode yet, so I don't know how
> > > thetwo grub's compare.
> > 
> > UEFI do not need GRUB{1,2} or any other boot manager.  They can boot any
> > kernel you drop in the EFI boot partition directly, as long as you set it
> > up so.  It becomes cumbersome if you are planning to multiboot various
> > kernels
> 
> &
> 
> > OS frequently.
> 
> You do need a manager like efibootmgr unless you have a really good "bios"
> menu where you can manage your entries. Only removable media is
> autodetected on all EFI boxes I've seen. I use GRUB2 because my efi
> firmware (like most) is really buggy. Changing the boot order doesn't work
> at all (neither on the menu nor through efibootmgr), so I have to delete
> and recreate the entries in the right order. What I did is create 2 efi
> entries, one for my main kernel and one for grub2 and I added entries for
> all my secondary kernels and windows on the grub2 menu.

Interesting ... here I had no such problems on an EUFI Asus MoBo.  I have a 
number of kernels (up to six last time I looked) and I can change the boot 
order with 'efibootmgr -o <numberA>,<numberB>,...,<numberZ>'

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:06:25 PM Mick wrote:
> On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 21:03:19 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:44:07 PM Mick wrote:
> > > On Thursday 27 Aug 2015 20:30:17 Grant Edwards wrote:
> > > > On 2015-08-27, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > > > >> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's
> > > > >> a pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
> > > > > grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit
> > > > > systems,
> > > > 
> > > > I still use it on all my 64-bit machines.
> > > > 
> > > > > (u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like
> > > > > btrfs-native or via lvm?
> > > > 
> > > > I haven't started using UEFI boot mode mode yet, so I don't know how
> > > > thetwo grub's compare.
> > > 
> > > UEFI do not need GRUB{1,2} or any other boot manager.  They can boot any
> > > kernel you drop in the EFI boot partition directly, as long as you set 
it
> > > up so.  It becomes cumbersome if you are planning to multiboot various
> > > kernels
> > 
> > &
> > 
> > > OS frequently.
> > 
> > You do need a manager like efibootmgr unless you have a really good "bios"
> > menu where you can manage your entries. Only removable media is
> > autodetected on all EFI boxes I've seen. I use GRUB2 because my efi
> > firmware (like most) is really buggy. Changing the boot order doesn't work
> > at all (neither on the menu nor through efibootmgr), so I have to delete
> > and recreate the entries in the right order. What I did is create 2 efi
> > entries, one for my main kernel and one for grub2 and I added entries for
> > all my secondary kernels and windows on the grub2 menu.
> 
> Interesting ... here I had no such problems on an EUFI Asus MoBo.  I have a 
> number of kernels (up to six last time I looked) and I can change the boot 
> order with 'efibootmgr -o <numberA>,<numberB>,...,<numberZ>'

I didn't mean  that all or most have that specific bug. But a  lot of them are 
really buggy. Some have case sensitive FAT drivers, or unusual filename length 
limits, or will only boot a specific filename like boot.efi. One has come up on 
this list a couple times with gummyboot that will ignore some entries 
seemingly at random which I would bet is a firmware bug.

efibootmgr -o seems to work for me, running efibootmgr again shows that the 
order has been updated but it is not persisted and when I reboot the previous 
default entry still boots. The --bootnext option does work for me when I need 
to boot a different entry just once.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Jeremi Piotrowski]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:

> I use GRUB2 because my efi firmware (like most) is really buggy.
> Changing the boot order doesn't work at all (neither on the menu nor
> through efibootmgr), so I have to delete and recreate the entries in the
> right order. What I did is create 2 efi entries, one for my main kernel
> and one for grub2 and I added entries for all my secondary kernels and
> windows on the grub2 menu.

I have a similar setup: an efi entry for my kernel and gummiboot instead
of grub2.

I would use the firmware boot selector for multibooting, but going there
lengthens the boot by around 10 seconds (Lenovo notebook) which is too
much for my liking.  So instead I by default boot into gummiboot and from
there I choose my kernel, separate grub2's from Fedora and Ubuntu, or
FreeBSD. Everything is nice and fast that way.

Fedora and Ubuntu manage their own grub configs on kernel updates and I
don't have to mess with any boot loader configs myself.


On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Mick wrote:

> Interesting ... here I had no such problems on an EUFI Asus MoBo.  I
> have a number of kernels (up to six last time I looked) and I can change
> the boot order with 'efibootmgr -o <numberA>,<numberB>,...,<numberZ>'

I have a MSI B85-G43 and I must say that thing is the worst when it comes
to managing the UEFI boot order. It completely ignores the one set using
`efibootmgr -o` and instead seems to keep track of the order in which
entries are added.

Half of the time it even ignores me selecting the EFI boot entry during
boot and instead merrily continues to load what it considers to be the
_first_ entry.

So I just use grub2 there and everything is fine.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Jeremi Piotrowski]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:19:29 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> 
> > For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> > pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> 
> Actually, that's a good scenario for GRUB2. grub2-mkconfig can detect
> all Linux installations on a system, not just the running one, so you
> only need one GRUB to boot everything. That's why distro installers are
> so much better at setting up Linux dual booting these days, because GRUB2
> makes it simple for them.
> 

It's true that grub2-mkconfig does Linux detection well but the problem
with one grub and multiple distros is the need to manually regenerate the
config.

I give you the following scenario:
Gentoo + another binary distro (say Fedora). Whichever one manages the
grub config can regenerate it on updates. On gentoo you'd do that manually
(post-install hooks?), Fedora would run grub2-mkconfig on kernel updates.
But what happens when the other one (not responsible for the config)
updates in a way that affects booting...?

You end up with an inconsistant config. To regenerate you need to boot
into the config-managing-distro or atleast chroot. But the worst thing is
you have to review all updates to find out if the config needs changing.

I much prefer chainloading and giving each distro free reign over their
own boot loader. That way they can pretend they're the boss and work the
way they were intended to and I can supervise things from gentoo.

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-27 13:16, Alan Mackenzie a écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:50:15PM +0000, mcatudal@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like
> Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control
> of the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use
> to boot Operating systems on my computer?
> Just to point out that the unparliamentary language is not going to
> contribute towards any solution.  For all we know, some of the relevant
> maintainers might be Gentoo users subscribed to this list, and slagging
> them off isn't helpful.

The language toward us is not much nicer. There is some arrogance from the other side of the issue.
We've been fighting this for years. It is a lie to say that it cannot install on a partition. What makes it not install is the installer that refuses to install it.
One one install I was able to do this (with Fedora) by passing an argument to force it to install on the partition.

As another gentoo user says so well, it is them wanting to be the only bootloader, so Microsoft.

We want to be free from Microsoft, not just replace a dictator with another one.

You may love it but there are many of us who hate it with a passion.

The bottom line is that we have to use grub 1 or lilo until grub 2 is fixed or forked by someone who is interested to fix it.

-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-27 14:23, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
>
> I just got it to work with these steps:
>
> 1. Mount the partition to /mnt/usb
> 2. Run:
>
> #grub2-install --directory /usr/lib/grub/i386-pc --boot-
> directory=/mnt/usb/boot --force /dev/sdb2
> Installing for i386-pc platform.
> grub2-install: warning: File system `ext2' doesn't support embedding.
> grub2-install: warning: Embedding is not possible.  GRUB can only be installed
> in this setup by using blocklists.  However, blocklists are UNRELIABLE and
> their use is discouraged..
> Installation finished. No error reported.
>
> 3. Set the partition as active with fdisk.
>
> And it booted. To verify that it didn't overwrite the mbr I overwrote it with
> syslinux's mbr as follows:
>
> sudo dd conv=notrunc bs=440 count=1 if=/usr/share/syslinux/mbr.bin of=/dev/sdb
>
> Still boots!
>
>
>
Thanks for the info. I will use this next time. How do you tell it to use some other display beside display for the blind?

I don't care for the automatic ways of grub2, I prefer to edit the boot file by hand and have a nice command line screen.
With grub1 you just tell it what type of display you want.

-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-27 15:18, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
> Who are you to tell them what they should work on? They're acting like FOSS developers, many of whom work for free or underpaid so they work on whatever the fuck they want. The problem with FOSS is that we have too many idiots that like to rant about 
> what they don't like instead of doing something about it. If all those energies went to improving the software FOSS would be so much better. 

No one is asking them to do that. As mentioned before it works with some override. A solution to the problem would be to remove the arrogance toward people who want grub on a partition and remove the part in the installer that refuses to install it unless 
you give it an override. If I say write the bootloader on the partition, that should work as requested, they can still write a comment that they do not like us doing it but should not keep us from doing it. If it doesn't work we will see it soon enough.


Michel


-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 622 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:17:46 -0400, Michel Catudal wrote:

> I don't care for the automatic ways of grub2, I prefer to edit the boot
> file by hand and have a nice command line screen.

As you can with GRUB2. grub-mkconfig is a convenience, mainly for
providers of binary distros so they can update the boot menu when
installing a new kernel package.

The info pages document the config file and how to edit it manually.

> With grub1 you just
> tell it what type of display you want.

As you do with GRUB2, just read the docs.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

WINDOWS: Will Install Needless Data On Whole System

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Jeremi Piotrowski]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Michel Catudal wrote:

> No one is asking them to do that. As mentioned before it works with some
> override. A solution to the problem would be to remove the arrogance toward
> people who want grub on a partition and remove the part in the installer that
> refuses to install it unless you give it an override. 

To me they are dealing with this in the right way. As the developers they
have to decide what setups they want to support as the spectrum is huge
and manpower is limited. 

There are problems with installing grub to a partition, read [1].
Therefore it is not supported and not allowed by default, because if they
don't do this people:

    1. _will_ try installing to a partition
    2. _will_ render their system unbootable
    3. _will_ come running for help and complaining
    4. _will_ get angry when you tell them `I told you so'

Seems perfectly legit to want to spare yourself this trouble.

> If I say write the
> bootloader on the partition, that should work as requested, they can still
> write a comment that they do not like us doing it but should not keep us from
> doing it. If it doesn't work we will see it soon enough.
>

I don't get you - that _is_ exactly what they are doing. You say 'write
bootloader to partition' by adding the force flag and grub2 complains but
does what it is told. 

[1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1229097#p1229097

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-27, Jeremi Piotrowski <jeremi.piotrowski@gmail.com> wrote:

> I much prefer chainloading and giving each distro free reign over their
> own boot loader. That way they can pretend they're the boss and work the
> way they were intended to and I can supervise things from gentoo.

Yup.  I've got up to 12 Linux distros on some machines, and I've found
that approach works far, far better that allowing multiple distros to
fight over who gets to configure a single bootloader.  A small grub
partition for the files needed by grub1 in the MBR, and then each
partition is a world unto itself with it's own bootloader that gets
managed by whatever distro is installed on that partion.

That used to be trivial, but it's getting a more difficult to do that
these with some distros refusing to install a bootloader anywhere
other than the MBR.  [That's just one of an increasing number of
reasons for my increasing dislike of Fedora/CentOS/RH.]  It's still a
lot easier than letting multiple distros all think they own the MBR
bootloader.  I've never had much luck with that at all.

--
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-27 20:31, Jeremi Piotrowski a écrit :
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Michel Catudal wrote:
>
>> No one is asking them to do that. As mentioned before it works with some
>> override. A solution to the problem would be to remove the arrogance toward
>> people who want grub on a partition and remove the part in the installer that
>> refuses to install it unless you give it an override.
> To me they are dealing with this in the right way. As the developers they
> have to decide what setups they want to support as the spectrum is huge
> and manpower is limited.
>
> There are problems with installing grub to a partition, read [1].
> Therefore it is not supported and not allowed by default, because if they
> don't do this people:
>
>      1. _will_ try installing to a partition
>      2. _will_ render their system unbootable
>      3. _will_ come running for help and complaining
>      4. _will_ get angry when you tell them `I told you so'
>
> Seems perfectly legit to want to spare yourself this trouble.

This is nonsense. I have never had a case where it would not boot when I have grub correctly installed on the partition. By having each distribution with its own bootloader they do not mess things up for the other. I keep 4 different linux distributions on 
my computer plus Ecomstation. If in one experiment I goof on one distribution I have some others to help me recover. If one of the distributions that messes up is in control of the boot loader I am screwed. I do not want any operating system in charge of 
the bootloader, isn't that clear enough?

If grub ever messes up the partition that will be because they added some troyan functions to piss off people who disagree with their ownership of the whole computer.

>> If I say write the
>> bootloader on the partition, that should work as requested, they can still
>> write a comment that they do not like us doing it but should not keep us from
>> doing it. If it doesn't work we will see it soon enough.
>>
> I don't get you - that _is_ exactly what they are doing. You say 'write
> bootloader to partition' by adding the force flag and grub2 complains but
> does what it is told.
>
> [1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1229097#p1229097
>
>

You missed the point, I do not want some installation treating me like a child by denying an install to protect me against myself. If I mess up my system it is nobody's business but mine.


-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> You missed the point, I do not want some installation treating me like a child by denying an install to protect me against myself. If I mess up my system it is nobody's business but mine.
>

Well, then quit acting like a child and patch it to work the way you
want it to work.  :)

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-27 21:50, Rich Freeman a écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
>> You missed the point, I do not want some installation treating me like a child by denying an install to protect me against myself. If I mess up my system it is nobody's business but mine.
>>
> Well, then quit acting like a child and patch it to work the way you
> want it to work.  :)
>

Right now grub1 works for me. I have no plan to fork grub2 as long as grub1 works. When I can no longer use grub1 I will have to look at that option.

Commenting on dictatorial behavior by some developper is not acting like a child, it is just defending a point.

-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
> Le 2015-08-27 21:50, Rich Freeman a écrit :
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You missed the point, I do not want some installation treating me like a
>>> child by denying an install to protect me against myself. If I mess up my
>>> system it is nobody's business but mine.
>>>
>> Well, then quit acting like a child and patch it to work the way you
>> want it to work.  :)
>>
>
> Right now grub1 works for me. I have no plan to fork grub2 as long as grub1
> works. When I can no longer use grub1 I will have to look at that option.
>

Nobody said you weren't allowed to use grub1.  Also, grub1 will work
until the end of time, just like OS/2 or MS-DOS or VMS - it isn't like
software has an expiration date.

> Commenting on dictatorial behavior by some developper is not acting like a
> child, it is just defending a point.

Somebody wrote some software for free that doesn't work the way you
want it to.  How is writing free software dictatorial?  Is anybody who
writes software and does not charge for it ethically bound to write it
to somebody else's specifications?  Even if you buy into "the customer
is always right" you aren't even their customer.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:25:01 PM Michel Catudal wrote:
> This is nonsense. I have never had a case where it would not boot when I 
have grub correctly installed on the partition. 

Install grub to a partition and do something like this:

su
cd
mv /boot/grub grub
cp -r grub /boot
rm -r grub

At this point your system is broken, but it will still boot. A few days to a 
few years from now your system stops booting, what do YOU do now? You go off 
ranting and name calling the devs.

Now, assume that the developers took your advise and let it install without 
warning, what does a sane person do? I would probably reinstall grub and 
forever wonder wtf went wrong.

Thankfully the developers looked out for me and showed me a warning and forced 
me to pay attention to it by requiring the --force option, so when my system 
breaks I'll remember that and know what went wrong (I'll probably forget but 
at least they tried).

There are other ways to break it, like resizing partitions and I believe this 
is also a problem with grub1. If you modify it to install to a partition 
cleanly without blocklists (which is definitely possible) I doubt that they'll 
reject your changes. Plenty of people are willing to complain but nobody's 
willing to do the work.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 611 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 22:03:44 -0400, Michel Catudal wrote:

> Commenting on dictatorial behavior by some developper is not acting
> like a child, it is just defending a point.

All software is dictatorial, or at least oligarchic. code talks, those
that write it get to say what goes in it, those that simply take get no
say. Unless the developers install the software on your machine against
your will, you always have a choice, so stop ranting because someone
isn't creating just what you want when they have no reason to.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

She's fine, upstanding, and wonderful laying down.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 466 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:34:30 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:

> I know it has worked in the past, and I know that recent versions of
> some distros that use Grub2 still allow you to pick a partition for
> the bootloader during the install.

I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
about?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Tom H]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
<frodriguez.developer@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 6:27:14 PM Michel Catudal wrote:
>>
>> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition
>> and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is
>> unacceptable.
>
> Yes and no, at least it can be a pain. I remember running into that and got it
> to work after several hours, unfortunately I forgot how. It may have been that
> it writes to both the mbr and the partition so you can restore the old mbr and
> still boot the partition. It also treats removable media and HDs different.
> It's hard to remember because I tried so many things.

You have to use "--force" but the grub developers consider using it
unreliable because you then have to make use of block lists.

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Tom H]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thursday 27 August 2015 08:49:13 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net>
>>>
>>> I've had serious problems in the past getting [grub2] to install on a
>>> partition and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the
>>> MBR which is unacceptable.
>>
>> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
>> simply not supported.
>
> So now grub2 is insisting on being the only boot manager present. That doesn't
> sound like the Linux way to me.

Linux is horrendously restrictive; you can only boot from one kernel at a time!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Tom H]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Grant Edwards
<grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition
>>> and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is
>>> unacceptable.
>>
>> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
>> simply not supported.
>
> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader.
> Bill Gates would be pround.
>
> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

You can boot multiple installations via grub2 with os-prober.

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Tom H]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:50 PM,  <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like
> Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control of
> the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use to boot
> Operating systems on my computer?

The grub developers may or may not be dictators but the reason that
they don't want grub2 installed in a pbr is that they don't want to
have to waste their time dealing with the bugs that'll come fro doing
so.

The whole point of using Linux is to be using FOSS not that you
necessarily have complete control. There are fewer restriction in
Gentoo than in binary distros but you can't do anything, or people
wouldn't be posting their emerge output on a regular basis because of
this or that blocker.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Tom H]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
<frodriguez.developer@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> You do need a manager like efibootmgr unless you have a really good "bios" menu
> where you can manage your entries. Only removable media is autodetected on all
> EFI boxes I've seen. I use GRUB2 because my efi firmware (like most) is really
> buggy. Changing the boot order doesn't work at all (neither on the menu nor
> through efibootmgr), so I have to delete and recreate the entries in the right
> order. What I did is create 2 efi entries, one for my main kernel and one for
> grub2 and I added entries for all my secondary kernels and windows on the
> grub2 menu.

I've used "efibootmgr -o ..." to change the boot order on a number of
laptops and U1/U2 systems without a problem. Perhaps I've been lucky.

I prefer to use elilo/gummiboot on EFI.

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thursday 27 August 2015 08:49:13 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net>
>>>>
>>>> I've had serious problems in the past getting [grub2] to install on a
>>>> partition and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the
>>>> MBR which is unacceptable.
>>>
>>> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
>>> simply not supported.
>>
>> So now grub2 is insisting on being the only boot manager present. That doesn't
>> sound like the Linux way to me.
>
> Linux is horrendously restrictive; you can only boot from one kernel at a time!
>

I get the joke but:

http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/
http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Main_Page

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Tom H]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski
<jeremi.piotrowski@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:19:29 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:


>>> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
>>> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
>>
>> Actually, that's a good scenario for GRUB2. grub2-mkconfig can detect
>> all Linux installations on a system, not just the running one, so you
>> only need one GRUB to boot everything. That's why distro installers are
>> so much better at setting up Linux dual booting these days, because GRUB2
>> makes it simple for them.
>
> It's true that grub2-mkconfig does Linux detection well but the problem
> with one grub and multiple distros is the need to manually regenerate the
> config.
>
> I give you the following scenario:
> Gentoo + another binary distro (say Fedora). Whichever one manages the
> grub config can regenerate it on updates. On gentoo you'd do that manually
> (post-install hooks?), Fedora would run grub2-mkconfig on kernel updates.

Fedora and RHEL don't use grub2-mkconfig (unfortunately).


> But what happens when the other one (not responsible for the config)
> updates in a way that affects booting...?

You're screwed no matter which bootloader you're using,

With EFI, depending on your setup, you can update your boot entries
without having to, for example, mount another distro's "/" or "/boot".

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Tom H]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> The language toward us is not much nicer. There is some arrogance from the
> other side of the issue.
> We've been fighting this for years. It is a lie to say that it cannot
> install on a partition. What makes it not install is the installer that
> refuses to install it.
> One one install I was able to do this (with Fedora) by passing an argument
> to force it to install on the partition.
>
> As another gentoo user says so well, it is them wanting to be the only
> bootloader, so Microsoft.
>
> We want to be free from Microsoft, not just replace a dictator with another
> one.
>
> You may love it but there are many of us who hate it with a passion.
>
> The bottom line is that we have to use grub 1 or lilo until grub 2 is fixed
> or forked by someone who is interested to fix it.

Whether it's a lie or not, the fact is that it isn't something that
the grub developers want to deal with.

The ext4 developer called the grub2 developers paranoid and
emotionally insecure a few years ago when this was brought to him but
no one can force them to re-add to grub2 what they consider a
misfeature of grub1.

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Tom H]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
> Le 2015-08-27 15:18, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
>>
>> Who are you to tell them what they should work on? They're acting like
>> FOSS developers, many of whom work for free or underpaid so they work on
>> whatever the fuck they want. The problem with FOSS is that we have too many
>> idiots that like to rant about what they don't like instead of doing
>> something about it. If all those energies went to improving the software
>> FOSS would be so much better.
>
> No one is asking them to do that. As mentioned before it works with some
> override. A solution to the problem would be to remove the arrogance toward
> people who want grub on a partition and remove the part in the installer
> that refuses to install it unless you give it an override. If I say write
> the bootloader on the partition, that should work as requested, they can
> still write a comment that they do not like us doing it but should not keep
> us from doing it. If it doesn't work we will see it soon enough.

So you want the Gentoo grub2 maintainer to patch grub2 to remove the
warning about partitions and the need for "--force" so that you can
use "grub2-install /dev/sda1"?

Isn't simpleer and more efficient for you to use "--force"?!

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-27 23:36, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:25:01 PM Michel Catudal wrote:
>> This is nonsense. I have never had a case where it would not boot when I
> have grub correctly installed on the partition.
>
> Install grub to a partition and do something like this:
>
> su
> cd
> mv /boot/grub grub
> cp -r grub /boot
> rm -r grub
>
What is your point? same if I do that with grub1, it was even more fun with windows 98 by deleting win.ini or renaming it "win .ini"
With grub on the partition my bootloader doesn't get wacked and I can restore the OS if I do a stupid thing like this.


-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Terry Z.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1432 bytes --]

On Aug 27, 2015 6:50 PM, <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> >It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> >simply not supported.
>
> When a needed functionality is no longer working it is a bug. To have
grub installing itself on the MBR when the users doesn't it to is
unacceptable because it wipes out the part that loads the bootloader so
booting to other operating systems (OS/2, PC Dos, Ecomstation, etc) is no
longer possible with a nice bootloader, we are then stuck with grub which
is a pain in the ass to setup.
>

Or simply an unsupported / deprecated feature.

> I want to use grub only for the current Linux that I boot on.

So try to do it, or fork it and fix it yourself? The freedom is there.

>
> The maintainers of grub are basically acting like dictators much like
Microsoft. The whole point of using Linux was to have complete control of
the PC. Who those morons think they are to tell me what I should use to
boot Operating systems on my computer?

I think you have this backwards. Who are you to demand others make software
behave the way you want? The only person telling you what you can use to
boot your machine is your own requirements.

Since you are so sure what the vision of this software should be, why don't
you whip up a lull request with the code to do what you want it to do?

You hold the power. Do something with it.
>
> Michel
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1782 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
> Le 2015-08-27 23:36, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
>>
>> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:25:01 PM Michel Catudal wrote:
>>>
>>> This is nonsense. I have never had a case where it would not boot when I
>>
>> have grub correctly installed on the partition.
>>
>> Install grub to a partition and do something like this:
>>
>> su
>> cd
>> mv /boot/grub grub
>> cp -r grub /boot
>> rm -r grub
>>
> What is your point? same if I do that with grub1, it was even more fun with
> windows 98 by deleting win.ini or renaming it "win .ini"
> With grub on the partition my bootloader doesn't get wacked and I can
> restore the OS if I do a stupid thing like this.

I think you missed his point.  If you do those commands your system
will actually reboot just fine most likely.  Today.

It might reboot tomorrow too.

A few weeks from now it probably won't.

Copying and deleting the grub stages doesn't bother grub one bit.  On
the other hand, overwritting those no-longer-allocated blocks with
other data will.

And that is why you need to use --force to make grub behave in this manner.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Jeremi Piotrowski]

> > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:25:01 PM Michel Catudal wrote:
> > > This is nonsense. I have never had a case where it would not boot when I
> > have grub correctly installed on the partition.

This hasn't happened to you so it obviously means it isn't possible...


On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Michel Catudal wrote:
> Le 2015-08-27 23:36, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
> > Install grub to a partition and do something like this:
> >
> > su
> > cd
> > mv /boot/grub grub
> > cp -r grub /boot
> > rm -r grub
> >
> What is your point? same if I do that with grub1, it was even more fun with
> windows 98 by deleting win.ini or renaming it "win .ini"
> With grub on the partition my bootloader doesn't get wacked and I can restore
> the OS if I do a stupid thing like this.
>

You seem to be trying really hard to _not_ get what people are saying to
you. 

The above commands will *not* change anything visibly - they are akin
to backing up your grub configuration and later restoring. It ends up at
the same location on the filesystem, but this doesn't mean it is at the
same location on the block device.

That's the problem with installing grub to a partition: all it really does
is store (in the PBR) a list of blocks where the grub core.img is located
without caring about the filesystem structure on top. This is a _fragile_
set-up.

So there. There are technical reasons why this is not a supported setup.

No one has removed this option from grub2, so all your complaints about
dictatorship are invalid.

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Grant Edwards]

On 2015-08-28, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:34:30 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> I know it has worked in the past, and I know that recent versions of
>> some distros that use Grub2 still allow you to pick a partition for
>> the bootloader during the install.
>
> I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
> location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
> about?

The last time I checked, CentOS/RH/Fedora don't allow installing a
bootloader to a partition.  At least I _think_ they don't allow it.  I
find the installer completely baffling.  I've done at least half-dozen
installs in the past year or two, and I still find the installer
impossible to fathom.

Though many things about Ubuntu don't agree with me, at least the
installer makes some sort of sense.

I link the Gentoo isntaller best of all.

--
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 700 bytes --]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 03:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:

> > I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
> > location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
> > about?  
> 
> The last time I checked, CentOS/RH/Fedora don't allow installing a
> bootloader to a partition.  At least I _think_ they don't allow it.  I
> find the installer completely baffling.  I've done at least half-dozen
> installs in the past year or two, and I still find the installer
> impossible to fathom.

Anaconda is a classic example of "if it ain't broke, wait for an update".


-- 
Neil Bothwick

O.K. I'm weird, but I'm saving up to become eccentric.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-28 05:24, Neil Bothwick a écrit :
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:34:30 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> I know it has worked in the past, and I know that recent versions of
>> some distros that use Grub2 still allow you to pick a partition for
>> the bootloader during the install.
> I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
> location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
> about?
>
>
Not all distributions are Microsoft type. Fedora comes to mind.

-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-28 07:24, Tom H a écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Grant Edwards
> <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a partition
>>>> and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR which is
>>>> unacceptable.
>>> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
>>> simply not supported.
>> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader.
>> Bill Gates would be pround.
>>
>> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
>> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
> You can boot multiple installations via grub2 with os-prober.
>

You have to be able to boot the os that grub is installed on to be able to fix booting issues. If the OS that has control of grub2 is wacked you are screwed.
At least with a bootloader that independant of any operating system and with a nice graphic interface it is a piece of cake to fix things since you do not ever lose your bootloader unless you let grub write on the MBR or on your bootloader partition.

I know that you can boot on grub if it is not wiped but the interface is not friendly at all and if you do not remember the syntax you are screwed. Until grub becomes a nice real bootloader with a friendly user interface it cannot be allowed to be the sole 
controller of booting.

Michel

-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-28 07:55, Tom H a écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Le 2015-08-27 15:18, Fernando Rodriguez a écrit :
>>> Who are you to tell them what they should work on? They're acting like
>>> FOSS developers, many of whom work for free or underpaid so they work on
>>> whatever the fuck they want. The problem with FOSS is that we have too many
>>> idiots that like to rant about what they don't like instead of doing
>>> something about it. If all those energies went to improving the software
>>> FOSS would be so much better.
>> No one is asking them to do that. As mentioned before it works with some
>> override. A solution to the problem would be to remove the arrogance toward
>> people who want grub on a partition and remove the part in the installer
>> that refuses to install it unless you give it an override. If I say write
>> the bootloader on the partition, that should work as requested, they can
>> still write a comment that they do not like us doing it but should not keep
>> us from doing it. If it doesn't work we will see it soon enough.
> So you want the Gentoo grub2 maintainer to patch grub2 to remove the
> warning about partitions and the need for "--force" so that you can
> use "grub2-install /dev/sda1"?
>
> Isn't simpleer and more efficient for you to use "--force"?!
>
>
By having this messages it makes the maintainers of some distributions assume that it is impossible and will do everything in their power to not allow you to install on the partition. That is the old Microsoft way of protecting the user against himself. 
That is fine for morons but people who know what they are doing should be allowed to wacked their system when they do stupid thing.

You probably know a few Linux distributions targeted to people who shouldn't be allowed anywere near a computer. So if we decide to install one of those to help one of those users we have some problem. Once I had that it got remove and I had to answer to 
the user, sorry I cannot allow this crappy linux distribution on my computer.

Michel

-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Alan McKinnon]

On 29/08/2015 18:17, Michel Catudal wrote:
> Le 2015-08-28 07:24, Tom H a écrit :
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Grant Edwards
>> <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal
>>>> <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a
>>>>> partition
>>>>> and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR
>>>>> which is
>>>>> unacceptable.
>>>> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
>>>> simply not supported.
>>> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader.
>>> Bill Gates would be pround.
>>>
>>> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
>>> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
>> You can boot multiple installations via grub2 with os-prober.
>>
> 
> You have to be able to boot the os that grub is installed on to be able
> to fix booting issues. If the OS that has control of grub2 is wacked you
> are screwed.
> At least with a bootloader that independant of any operating system and
> with a nice graphic interface it is a piece of cake to fix things since
> you do not ever lose your bootloader unless you let grub write on the
> MBR or on your bootloader partition.
> 
> I know that you can boot on grub if it is not wiped but the interface is
> not friendly at all and if you do not remember the syntax you are
> screwed. Until grub becomes a nice real bootloader with a friendly user
> interface it cannot be allowed to be the sole controller of booting.



Michel PLEASE, get it now already, and stop cluttering up the list with
your spew.

DON'T LIKE GRUB? DON'T FUCKING USE IT.

Meanwhile the grub devs will continue to write the code they want to
write. You want them to do what you want? Pay them a salary, at market
rates.



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Terry Z.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2515 bytes --]

So please contribute to the grub2 repo a pull request that meets your
requirements rather than complain about it. You are also free to maintain
any package you want in a custom overlay in gentoo that packages those
requirements. Free software is about preventing lock in and empowering the
user. You have that power nor are you locked in. So use it.

You are quickly making yourself to be an  example of the type of user that
the free software community does NOT recognize or support.

You can make grub2 do whatever you want. So please do or ask for help in
that endeavor, not complaining about mythical Microsoft things.
On Aug 29, 2015 6:17 PM, "Michel Catudal" <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:

> Le 2015-08-28 07:24, Tom H a écrit :
>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Grant Edwards
>> <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on a
>>>>> partition
>>>>> and gave up. Is that bug fixed? It insists on installing on the MBR
>>>>> which is
>>>>> unacceptable.
>>>>>
>>>> It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
>>>> simply not supported.
>>>>
>>> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader.
>>> Bill Gates would be pround.
>>>
>>> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
>>> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.
>>>
>> You can boot multiple installations via grub2 with os-prober.
>>
>>
> You have to be able to boot the os that grub is installed on to be able to
> fix booting issues. If the OS that has control of grub2 is wacked you are
> screwed.
> At least with a bootloader that independant of any operating system and
> with a nice graphic interface it is a piece of cake to fix things since you
> do not ever lose your bootloader unless you let grub write on the MBR or on
> your bootloader partition.
>
> I know that you can boot on grub if it is not wiped but the interface is
> not friendly at all and if you do not remember the syntax you are screwed.
> Until grub becomes a nice real bootloader with a friendly user interface it
> cannot be allowed to be the sole controller of booting.
>
> Michel
>
> --
> For Linux Software visit
> http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3608 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal@comcast.net> wrote:
> You have to be able to boot the os that grub is installed on to be able to
> fix booting issues. If the OS that has control of grub2 is wacked you are
> screwed.
> At least with a bootloader that independant of any operating system and with
> a nice graphic interface it is a piece of cake to fix things since you do
> not ever lose your bootloader unless you let grub write on the MBR or on
> your bootloader partition.
>
> I know that you can boot on grub if it is not wiped but the interface is not
> friendly at all and if you do not remember the syntax you are screwed. Until
> grub becomes a nice real bootloader with a friendly user interface it cannot
> be allowed to be the sole controller of booting.

The grub config syntax is not really that bad; the main issue is that
grub-mkconfig generates a very complex config file to try and cover a
lot of possible systems.

grub is pretty much designed to be able to boot any OS you have
installed on any filesystem. That flexibility carries with it a level
of complexity as well. If you don't need that flexibility, a simpler
boot loader is always an option for you.

If you want an "OS-independent" boot loader, the syslinux family of
boot loaders might be a good choice for you. Or keep using grub
legacy. Just don't expect either of them to be able to boot Linux from
ZFS, or ext4 on lvm on luks. That's where grub2 comes in handy.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-29 12:57, Mike Gilbert a écrit :
> If you want an "OS-independent" boot loader, the syslinux family of boot loaders might be a good choice for you. Or keep using grub legacy. Just don't expect either of them to be able to boot Linux from ZFS, or ext4 on lvm on luks. That's where grub2 
> comes in handy. 

Thanks, I will look a that. All I care about booting on is ext4. I used to have reiserfs but since the guy in charge is in jail I switched to ext4.
For windows I use a separate PC. I might do the same thing with ecomstation eventually.

Michel

-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 922 bytes --]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:00:51 -0400, Michel Catudal wrote:

> > I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
> > location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
> > about?

> Not all distributions are Microsoft type. Fedora comes to mind.

WTF are you on about? You complain that GRUB2 can't install to a
partition, and call such restrictions Microsoft-like. I point out that
openSUSE does indeed install GRUB2 to a partition, just ike you want, and
now you call them Microsoft-like?

So in your view, installing to  the MBR is dictatorial like Microsoft
while installing to a partition like you say you want is also Microsoft
like? I think you should take Alan's advice.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Snacktrek, n.:
 The peculiar habit, when searching for a snack, of constantly
 returning to the refrigerator in hopes that something new will have
 materialized.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-08-29 16:56, Neil Bothwick a écrit :
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:00:51 -0400, Michel Catudal wrote:
>
>>> I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
>>> location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
>>> about?
>> Not all distributions are Microsoft type. Fedora comes to mind.
> WTF are you on about? You complain that GRUB2 can't install to a
> partition, and call such restrictions Microsoft-like. I point out that
> openSUSE does indeed install GRUB2 to a partition, just ike you want, and
> now you call them Microsoft-like?
>
> So in your view, installing to  the MBR is dictatorial like Microsoft
> while installing to a partition like you say you want is also Microsoft
> like? I think you should take Alan's advice.
>
>
You should read more carefully, I mentioned that some distributions do not allow it. Someone mentioned that Fedora won't let you.
I did succeed with Fedora but not during the normal installation. I have never had problems with SuSE which used to be my favorite
before I started using gentoo and funtoo.

Forcing to use only one operating system to control the PC is dictatorial. When I buy a computer I want to be in total control. When I have several OS installed I do not want one of them wiping out my bootloader access.

My main system is gentoo and when I goof on an update I fall back on funtoo until I get time to fix the issue. My other installs are SuSE, Fedora. I also had centos and scientific linux before one of my hard disks died. I will probably install them again.

Matter closed as I am getting bored discussing the issue, since both sides will never agree on the subject there is no point in talking any more about it. Some people just will never understand the necessity for us doing the kind of work I do for the need 
to have a reliable bootloader that is independant of any OS.

Michel

-- 
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[»Q«]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:24:31 +0100
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:34:30 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> 
> > I know it has worked in the past, and I know that recent versions of
> > some distros that use Grub2 still allow you to pick a partition for
> > the bootloader during the install.  
> 
> I'm installing openSUSE 13.2 into a VM right now and the *default*
> location for installing GRUB2 is a partition! So what's all the fuss
> about?

Arch's wiki has the best explanation I could find of why it's
discouraged, along with the warnings grub itself displays when you do
it anyway.

<https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Grub#Install_to_partition_or_partitionless_disk>