| 1 |
----- Original Message ----- |
| 2 |
From: "Duncan" <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> |
| 3 |
To: <gentoo-amd64@l.g.o> |
| 4 |
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:36 PM |
| 5 |
Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: grub and maximum kernel file size |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> flockmock@×××.at posted 200904091859.12109.flockmock@×××.at, excerpted |
| 9 |
> below, on Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:59:11 +0200: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> thanks for the answer, i'm already running grub-0.97-r9. perhaps it is |
| 12 |
>> time to switch back to good old lilo, or to play with grub2 ;) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I don't know then. Did you check the bugs mentioned in the changelog? I |
| 15 |
> think at least one of them was a size bug. It may or may not apply. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The other possible alternative might be to consider whether you actually |
| 18 |
> need that initramfs or not. Often, you won't, provided you build the |
| 19 |
> appropriate modules into the kernel and/or use an appropriate kernel |
| 20 |
> command line. One exception is root on lvm2, since that requires |
| 21 |
> userspace. However, here, while I run both kernel md/mdp RAID and LVM2, |
| 22 |
> I deliberately kept my root filesystem off of LVM, thus avoiding an |
| 23 |
> initramfs. root is on RAID (mdp), but that can be assembled by the |
| 24 |
> kernel directly, using parameters fed to it at the commandline (or since |
| 25 |
> 2.6.28 IIRC, as compiled in command line parameters). |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> No initramfs seriously decomplicates things. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> But who am I to say? It's your system, not mine. It's worth considering |
| 30 |
> tho. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
What exacly is the error message you get? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> -- |
| 38 |
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 39 |
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 40 |
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
Archives