| 1 |
On Thursday, 7 December 2017 12:04:08 GMT Kai Peter wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2017-12-06 13:28, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday, 3 December 2017 15:12:21 GMT Mick wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 03-12-2017 ,10:57:33, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
--->8 |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> > Sys-boot/grub-0.97-r17 compiled and installed all right, as a package, |
| 9 |
> > but when I went to install it to the MBR I got an error complaining of a |
| 10 |
> > mismatch or corruption in stage X. The wording was something like that, |
| 11 |
> > and I forget the value of X. There was no mention of disk space, and the |
| 12 |
> > boot partition is 2GB, so I think it's something else. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Installing sys-boot/grub-static-0.97-r12 instead went smoothly, so I've |
| 15 |
> > left it like that for the moment. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Does the team think I should go back to grub-0.97-r17, take proper |
| 18 |
> > records and file a bug report? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I question if this makes sense for a masked ebuild. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Masked? Not here, it isn't. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I'm curious about what was discussed until now. The issue seems to be |
| 25 |
> quite simple to solve. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> The build fails but portage/gcc does give clear info in this case: the |
| 28 |
> option "-nopie" have to be changed to "-no-pie". This option is set in |
| 29 |
> 860_all_grub-0.97-pie.patch. Here is a diff: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
--->8 |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Yes, this has been made clear already, but it's not the problem I had. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> Maybe the easiest way is to create a new grub-patches package, but there |
| 36 |
> are other ways to change this too. I'm expected the upstream will change |
| 37 |
> this soon - within the remaining 5 weeks ;-). |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Another thing is I question that grub-legacy have to be rebuild at all. |
| 40 |
> I'm pretty sure it is save to remove it from the world file or comment |
| 41 |
> it out. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Then the first emerge -c will remove it from the system. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Anyhow, upgrading to grub2 is IMHO the right way. There are some |
| 46 |
> examples given in parallel threads how to write a grub.cfg by hand - and |
| 47 |
> keep it simple :-). Then nothing else then the grub2 binary and |
| 48 |
> grub2-install is required usually. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Long-standing readers may remember that I have reasons for avoiding grub-2. |
| 51 |
I still think it's a monstrosity and I'd much prefer never to have to |
| 52 |
wrestle with it again. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
On the other hand, I suppose I could have another go at writing my own |
| 55 |
grub.cfg, just for the one little Atom box, if only for a quiet life. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Regards, |
| 59 |
Peter. |
Archives