On 20 November 2010 15:25, Heiko Baums <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:27:35 +0100 > schrieb Pierre Schmitz <pierre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> ATM. we have grub1 in core/base and install that by default. The >> problem is that this project is virtually dead for a long time now and >> also not available on x86_64. Technically it has to be in the multilib >> repo. > > I'm running a x86_64 system and have grub1 installed without any lib32 > dependencies. So, of course it's available on x86_64. Why shall this be > moved to [multilib]? > >> An alternative successor would be extlinux from the syslinux package. >> It's very simple, easy to configure, actively maintained and reliable. >> Sure, it only supports booting from ext* and btrfs afaik but to be >> honest, if you use any other FS you should have a separate /boot even >> when using grub. > > This would be a massive regression because there are several people who > are using reiserfs and other filesystems. > > And what has a separate /boot partition to do with the bootloader and > the filesystem? You can use almost every filesystem on the /boot > partition. > > The best would be if every available bootloader would be moved to > [core] and supported by AIF, so that the user can decide during the > installation which bootloader fits best to him and which bootloader > shall be installed, because there's currently no bootloader which can do > everything. Depending on the partition scheme and the used filesystem > a different bootloader is needed. > > And simultaneously every filesystem related package incl. btrfs-utils > e.g. should be moved to [core] and supported by AIF, too. So that the > user can decide during the installation how he wants to partition and > format his drives and which filesystem he wants to use. > >> Summing up my suggestion for some time in the future would be: >> * move extlinux/syslinux to core/base > Good idea. > >> * move grub1 to extra/multilib and remove it from base group > Bad idea and doesn't make much sense until there is a real equivalent > alternative. It's still the most used bootloader I guess. > >> * keep grub2 in extra > Should go to [core], too. > >> * maybe also move lilo to extra > Not the best idea, too. > >> * of course keep all of them on the install cd > Good idea again. But on the install CD there are only [core] packages > as far as I know which makes sense. So all these packages should be > moved to [core]. > >> What do you think about this? At some point it might not be >> sane/possible to keep grub1 as our default boot loader. > > But I don't see this point, yet. It will be sometime in the future > when there's a real alternative which can boot from every possible > partition scheme and filesystem. > > Heiko > I'd keep grub legacy in core and I'd add grub 2 to core too. When grub 2 become usable enough it could replace grub legacy completely. And for the other bootloaders: I'd scrap lilo – I don't see any reason why to keep it in core, it's inferior compared to grub (or syslinux). I'm not yet sure about syslinux.
