Re: [gentoo-amd64] new clean rebuild

[Mark Knecht]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Drake Donahue <donahue95@×××××××.net> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Beso
>> To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
>> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 2:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] new clean rebuild
>
> <snip><beso discussed rebuild>
>
>> 2008/5/17 Mark Knecht markknecht@×××××.com
>
> said in part in reply:
>
>> 1) Mask >grub-0.97.r4 for now.
>
> Recommend not doing the step above.
>
> In contrast to my experience a week ago when ext2/ext3 filesystems were
> being built with INODE_SIZE=128 (in spite of  a default INODE_SIZE=256 in
> the /etc/mke2fs.conf  file}; yesterday, an up-to-date mke2fs was honoring
> the default setting and producing  ext2/ext3 filesystems with
> INODE_SIZE=256.
> If one runs mke2fs as suggested in the handbook to create a filesystem for
> use as /boot the filesystem  will have INODE_SIZE=256. Therefore
> grub-0.97.r4 and older will not be able to setup a stage 1/stage1.5/stage2
> capable of loading /boot. At the point the handbook follower finds that grub
> 0.97.4 is reporting:
> <quote>
> grub> setup (hd0)
> Checking if "/boot/grub/stage1" exists... no
> Checking if "/grub/stage1" exists... no
>
> Error 2: Bad file or directory type
> <unquote>
> The valid recovery choices then will be:
> a) unmask grub, emerge grub (version 0.97.5 or newer), run grub and setup
> the desired drive
> or
> b) move or copy /boot and subdirectories to another partition, remake the
> filesystem specifying INODE_SIZE=128, return /boot and subdirectories to the
> remade partition, run grub setup the desired drive.
>
> <snip><Mark suggested rebuild techniques><beso further discussed/replied>
>
> Beso said in part in reply:
>
>> ps. i've never had any problems with grub, unless the fact that i'm not
>> able to rebuild it with the grubfx >image (as the opensuse version).
>
> I've played extensively with grub 0.97-r5 in the last 10 days and it is not
> a problem.
> Should also be noted that emerging/installing grub has no affect on the
> ability to boot an existing installation. Effects are not felt until grub or
> grub-install is run or grub.conf is edited.

Drake,
   Thanks very much for the info. It makes me feel *slightly* better,
but still I feel I need to study a bit more.

   My recommendation to Beso was based on the trouble you were having.
Personally I don't know of any *major* advantage to 0.9-r5 so on my
existing machines I've masked it out until I really understand how to
upgrade it without problems. (I think I do but again I wanted to study
it and didn't want any suggestion I gave Beso to cause him problems.

   I did rebuild a couple of old boxes this last week from scratch. On
those machines I used 0.97-r5 and on a 'from scratch' installation it
worked fine, other than an issue with not having a menu.lst link on
one machine.

Cheers,
Mark
-- 
gentoo-amd64@l.g.o mailing list