----- Original Message ----- > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 02:53:11PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > > > This is incorrect. The whole reason the stage1.5 portion is an fs > > compatible reader is so that you can update the stage2 file and it > > will pick the changes up without needing to be reinstalled. This > > is > > also born out by the fact that on package update, there is no %post > > action in the spec to reinstall the mbr and stage 1.5 files even > > though the stage2 file likely just changed. > > We never update the stage 2 file without reinstalling the mbr and > stage > 1.5. The output of rpm -qf grub may be instructive. Which has it's own gotchas. I never use grub-install as it does the wrong things in certain circumstances. I always manually run grub then do the install command myself. In my case, after a grub update, I'm going to end up with a newer MBR but older stage1.5 and stage2 files because I didn't know I needed to copy them from /usr/share after an rpm upgrade. > > > I don't see where compatibility issues come into it. If > > > you're using the code as you're meant to use the code then you'll > > > always > > > be safe. If you're not, it's not guaranteed to be safe. > > > > Like I said, not true. The grub package is designed to be > > updateable > > without requiring an mbr reinstall. What's more is I had a look at > > the stage1.[hS] files in the grub shipped in FC-1 and RHEL-5, and > > just > > like I said, they are indeed binary compatible. So even if the > > grub > > user space application pulls its MBR from a statically linked copy > > of > > the MBR, it will still work with pretty much any stage1.5 or stage2 > > you find in a guest. > > The grub package (as provided in Fedora) is not designed for that. > This > would be a much easier discussion to have if you stopped describing > things that are manifestly true as "not true". And while it is the > case > that grub *is* binary compatible between every version we've ever > released, it is *not* guaranteed that that remains true, or even that > it's true between us and any distribution that may be installed in a > guest. I never said it was guaranteed, just that it was highly likely. And for the stage1 loader, I stand by that. For the stage1.5 and stage2 loaders, they are installed as a pair by the grub install command I sent out in this thread and so incompatibilities between them are taken care of. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
