[gentoo-user] Re: Grub1: Cant ? Re: keeping grub 1

[James]

Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards <at> gmail.com> writes:

>
> On 2015-08-27, Mike Gilbert <floppym <at> gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Michel Catudal <mcatudal <at>
comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I've had serious problems in the past getting to to install on
> >> a partition  and gave up. Is that bug fixed?
> >> It insists on installing on the MBR which is unacceptable.

Hmmm. For my purposes (That is creating a PreQualifing Matrix based
on the answers to some questions) it would seem that requiring installation
of Grub on a partition and not the MBR would mean that only Grub-2 can be used.


> > It's not a bug, and it won't be "fixed". Installing on a partition is
> > simply not supported.
> So, grub2 refuses to share power and cooperate with another bootloader.
> Bill Gates would be proud.

Yea there does seem to a lot of that going around. The good news is
there are so many qualified kernel/lowlevel/devicedriver coders
around these days, it's only a matter of time before a serious
fork in the bootloader/kernel world of linux occurs. It just keeps
boiling and roiling, imho. ymmv.


> For those of us with multiple Linux installations on a disk, that's a
> pretty big reason to stick with grub-legacy.

So you are saying (trying to read the 'tea leaves' here) that
grub legacy ( grub-static-0.97-r12) will work  well on a 64 bit systems,
(u)efi with say multiple drives (> 2T) and Raid-1 configs like btrfs-native
or via lvm?

I'm not challenging what you are saying; I'm trying to figure out what 
everybody is suggestions to publish the first draft of the PreQualifying
Matrix Questions and the resulting valid choices one can infer. Grub 1vs2
is a big part of that matrix.


curiously,
James