On Nov 20, 2010, at 9:38 AM, "Lukáš Jirkovský" <l.jirkovsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 w > hy > to keep it in core, it's inferior compared to grub (or syslinux). I'm > not yet sure about syslinux. Is syslinux a 64bit build? Could we use that by default (why/why not)? I use extlinux on all my machines with success. I would check myself but I'm on the interstate. C Anthony [mobile]
