| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Since Grub Legacy and Grub 2 are slotted, Portage won't remove the |
| 3 |
> older version. Even if it removes the older one, everything necessary |
| 4 |
> is installed into /boot and the MBR already. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Portage will remove the older slot the next time the user runs emerge |
| 7 |
--depclean unless sys-boot/grub:0 is added to the world file. I'm |
| 8 |
looking for a good way to communicate this to the user. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
How about this: For ~arch, we do an ewarn in pkg_postinst if grub:0 is |
| 11 |
installed. For stable, we do a news item. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The best route forward would be to instruct people to use |
| 15 |
> grub2-install (but whatever the flag is to prevent MBR installation). |
| 16 |
> Have people generate their grub.cfg with grub2-mkconfig and then put a |
| 17 |
> chain loader into the Grub Legacy configs so that they can test Grub 2 |
| 18 |
> and then once they test it tell them to install Grub 2 into the MBR |
| 19 |
> and remove Grub Legacy. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Yeah, I vaguely remember trying this when I first installed grub:2. |
| 22 |
You can prevent the MBR installation by stubbing out the grub-setup |
| 23 |
call. For example: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
grub2-install --grub-setup=/bin/true /dev/sda |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You would then load /boot/grub2/i386-pc/core.img just like a Linux |
| 28 |
kernel from menu.lst. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
If you (or anyone) wants to test and verify that this actually works, |
| 31 |
that would be great. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I'll gladly work with you on this. IMHO, it might be a good plan to |
| 35 |
> unmask and ~arch one of the release candidates with an aim to get Grub |
| 36 |
> 2.0.0 fully released with docs. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
That sounds like a good idea. |
Archives