From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24F07139083 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:04:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D353E101B; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:04:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay03.ispgateway.de (smtprelay03.ispgateway.de [80.67.29.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94065E0FFA for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:04:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [217.250.62.16] (helo=razor.aldox.org) by smtprelay03.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eMuuP-000436-0f for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 13:04:09 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=openqmail.org; s=default; l=3043; x=1513253048; i=kp@lists.openqmail.org; h=Received:Received:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:From:To:Subject: In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:User-Agent; bh=L9AohZdXKZdcZvU eYlBImYfnQhN1JpT3idmv3tGeEVQ=; b=SISPBH+jxzfYKz/Rs0ryx9XSPe/kwLP A+VdE4RkjRBQziGIXpBIzJdWNIatIZ/jrVHDXbatilo2pvw/AyBowsrdQEhMLNgj 9AN7U8sZpnIR0BQpJDwyIFP3gRMkF1gsFKVkH6Z8GeMQ+W900iYkSPhFlYZ0vkNW GiEhzS6k2WUM= Received: (qmail 29880 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2017 13:04:08 +0100 Received: from xaero.aldox.org (HELO webmail.de.dyndn.es) (192.168.7.249) by smtp.aldox.org with SMTP; 7 Dec 2017 13:04:08 +0100 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-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 13:04:08 +0100 From: Kai Peter To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] grub-0.97-r16 and profile 17.0 change In-Reply-To: <2212379.l0OfTGrFQ4@peak> References: <1955971.eH3XJlyHHK@dell_xps> <75632409.quWH5ZCll1@peak> <20171203151221.GB18985@dell_xps.STUDY> <2212379.l0OfTGrFQ4@peak> Message-ID: X-Sender: kp@lists.openqmail.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.2 X-Df-Sender: c210cDFAYWxkb3guZGU= X-Archives-Salt: b3a1bad1-a335-41c2-abc3-86ebebaa3bae X-Archives-Hash: 15bc7a1faacb0db1208abfc76c14c364 On 2017-12-06 13:28, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Sunday, 3 December 2017 15:12:21 GMT Mick wrote: >> On 03-12-2017 ,10:57:33, Peter Humphrey wrote: >> > On Saturday, 2 December 2017 12:30:57 GMT Mick wrote: >> > > I'm getting this error after I changed my profile as per >> > > '2017-11-30-new-17- >> > > >> > > profiles' news item: >> > > >>> Compiling source in >> > > >>> /data/tmp_var/portage/sys-boot/grub-0.97-r16/work/ >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > > However, sys-boot/grub-0.97-r17 installed fine once keyworded on this >> > > (mostly) stable system. This may save time for others who come across >> > > the same problem. >> > sys-boot/grub-0.97-r17 >> > It has. Thanks Mick. >> >> Unfortunately, an older system with only 50MB /boot partition did not >> have enough space to allow sys-boot/grub-0.97-r17 to install all its >> files and fs drivers. I ended up restoring /boot from a back up. >> YMMV. > > I spoke too soon, too. Sys-boot/grub-0.97-r17 compiled and installed > all > right, as a package, but when I went to install it to the MBR I got an > error > complaining of a mismatch or corruption in stage X. The wording was > something like that, and I forget the value of X. There was no mention > of > disk space, and the boot partition is 2GB, so I think it's something > else. > > Installing sys-boot/grub-static-0.97-r12 instead went smoothly, so I've > left > it like that for the moment. > > Does the team think I should go back to grub-0.97-r17, take proper > records > and file a bug report? I question if this makes sense for a masked ebuild. I'm curious about what was discussed until now. The issue seems to be quite simple to solve. The build fails but portage/gcc does give clear info in this case: the option "-nopie" have to be changed to "-no-pie". This option is set in 860_all_grub-0.97-pie.patch. Here is a diff: --- a/860_all_grub-0.97-pie.patch 2012-05-31 01:00:13.000000000 +0200 +++ b/860_all_grub-0.97-pie.patch 2017-12-07 11:28:57.536089642 +0100 @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ + grub_cv_cc_fpie=no) + ]) + if test "x$grub_cv_cc_fpie" = xyes; then -+ STAGE1_CFLAGS="$STAGE1_CFLAGS -nopie" -+ STAGE2_CFLAGS="$STAGE2_CFLAGS -nopie" ++ STAGE1_CFLAGS="$STAGE1_CFLAGS -no-pie" ++ STAGE2_CFLAGS="$STAGE2_CFLAGS -no-pie" + fi fi fi Maybe the easiest way is to create a new grub-patches package, but there are other ways to change this too. I'm expected the upstream will change this soon - within the remaining 5 weeks ;-). Another thing is I question that grub-legacy have to be rebuild at all. I'm pretty sure it is save to remove it from the world file or comment it out. Anyhow, upgrading to grub2 is IMHO the right way. There are some examples given in parallel threads how to write a grub.cfg by hand - and keep it simple :-). Then nothing else then the grub2 binary and grub2-install is required usually. Kai -- Sent with eQmail-1.10