From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1NaXy4-0001JN-UN for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:15:45 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NaXy2-0001Gr-6U for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:15:42 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NaXxx-0001C4-Fg for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:15:41 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35711 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NaXxx-0001Bh-4p for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:15:37 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:57687) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NaXxu-0004M1-Kn for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:15:35 -0500 Received: from [192.168.100.121] (xdsl-78-34-183-36.netcologne.de [78.34.183.36]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MFfhh-1NX1JQ2pMb-00Emhr; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:15:33 +0100 Message-ID: <4B61C635.7000503@web.de> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:15:33 +0100 From: edgar.soldin@web.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bean , The development of GNU GRUB References: <20100128114547.GI4409@riva.ucam.org> <4B619B17.7010709@web.de> <20100128145559.GK4409@riva.ucam.org> <4B61BDC0.4010008@web.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+vKqfn7MQL1m4ebN1cSXbYtF+o6F9vvph05rP WBy8NtJzoC+pnwr9I4gwOJ+5UjUqbU9lbRJQksYbiB/Dsa+7uJ 4vQwSel4eS8q7yijH+Pyw== X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Cc: Subject: Re: Is it possible to have grub2's boot.img as my MBR, but have it look in a separate partition for core.img? X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:15:43 -0000 So grubinst bootcode seems superior over grub2 bootcode regarding partitions? ede On 28.01.2010 17:57, Bean wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM, wrote: > >> I am pretty sure. If you want I am willing to retry. >> >> Still I wonder what is the deifference to the grubinst/g2ldr approach and >> why the boot code can find g2ldr. Can it read fat fs? >> > Hi, > > Yeah, grubinst contains its own fs reader, it's all written in > assembly, 1 sector fat + 1 sector ext2 + 4 sector ntfs plus other > utilities. The whole size is about 8K. > > >