From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Kt3Q6-0003MX-D4 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:52:22 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kt3Q4-0003Lh-Pp for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:52:20 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kt3Q2-0003K7-SN for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:52:20 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35253 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kt3Q2-0003Jy-DD for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:52:18 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:41982) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kt3Q2-0000fS-1v for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:52:18 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO relay.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.81]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2008 12:52:13 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.21] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by relay.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7D7618FDE; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:52:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 , Hollis Blanchard In-Reply-To: <1224774409.16720.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1224622323.31194.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1224626697.3267.19.camel@dv> <1224628806.31194.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081023012558.mlk1yefps0ws4k4c-cebfxv@webmail.spamcop.net> <1224774409.16720.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:52:11 -0400 Message-Id: <1224780731.17766.23.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Cc: Manoel , Carlos Roberto do Nascimento Costa Subject: Re: PPC64 X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:52:21 -0000 On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 10:06 -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 01:25 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > Actually, I would prefer all files that don't have to be on HFS or on > > the raw partition to be on the native partition, so that they can be > > easily accessed. That includes grub.cfg. > > FWIW, I ran for years with an HFS partition "natively" mounted > on /boot/grub, and I never experienced any instability. Do you have > reason (other than hearsay) to mistrust the Linux HFS driver? HFS support is marked experimental in Linux 2.6.27, unlike HFSPLUS. I'm not sure about the quality of fsck.hfs. However, it's not that I distrust any drivers or utilities. The HFS driver may be missing from the kernel. It doesn't even have to be a Linux kernel. > > Anyway, I think it's too much to ask from users to change the existing > > partitioning or mount points. GRUB can be more compatible with both > > its i386 implementation and with yaboot by keeping modules in > > /boot/grub on ext2 or another native filesystem and placing the > > minimal core to the machine specific boot partition (whether it's HFS > > or raw or something else). > > Actually I don't remember if I had to change the partitioning scheme at > all: isn't GRUB + modules small enough to fit into the typical "ybin > boot partition"? It would fit. But it's better to keep modules and grub.cfg on a filesystem that is easier to access. > I don't think asking the user to add an entry to /etc/fstab is an > onerous restriction. After all, they are trying to replace their > distribution's bootloader in the first place, so they almost certainly > have some familiarity with the boot process. Once distributions use > GRUB2 of course, no user intervention would be required. > > My basic point is that requiring grub-install and this mystical "hidden > partition in the mist" is just silly. It's completely unnecessary on > systems with filesystem support in firmware, and it's silly to > artificially limit those systems by imposing historical x86 restrictions > onto them. I can imagine that there are some real issues why the HFS boot partition is not mounted. HFS may lack some security mechanisms that other filesystems have. It may not have a good fsck. Anyway, whatever the reasons, I don't think switching from yaboot to GRUB would change those reasons. For GRUB to be a compelling replacement, it would be beneficial if it could fit the existing systems. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin