From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E61E13989A for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:54:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DE4F1435A; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BLU004-OMC1S15.hotmail.com (blu004-omc1s15.hotmail.com [65.55.116.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C6FB14298 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BLU437-SMTP10 ([65.55.116.7]) by BLU004-OMC1S15.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:54:32 -0700 X-TMN: [a9OjxbTNt7hZySwXmxWdIB7Oq4Y6JfgX] X-Originating-Email: [frodriguez.developer@outlook.com] Message-ID: From: Fernando Rodriguez To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:53:48 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/4.14.8 (Linux/3.18.20; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2015 19:54:32.0190 (UTC) FILETIME=[30FE49E0:01D0E102] X-Archives-Salt: 67825f6d-d6e6-43a3-a752-4ad721a56e66 X-Archives-Hash: e97473b1d10c3eb77b9234afa2bfa6c1 On Thursday, August 27, 2015 4:47:30 PM James wrote: > Grant Edwards gmail.com> writes: > > > > > On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal > 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