From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1OV8RW-0006Gb-BE for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:32:02 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53692 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OV8RT-0006GN-AZ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:32:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OV8RR-0008W6-LX for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:31:59 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:42998) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OV8RR-0008Vy-FW for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:31:57 -0400 Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so2683530bwz.0 for ; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:31:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type; bh=SIK1xtGBMhT2ZEOUs7zsM4U5arv4fui8cZk2VAXq0X4=; b=xB8shuKwJ3isCrCHY85kGcHofWEtOLaBU0Beu7mCNo/f/UokePmfRNg8otZGOnErCt HDQZwa+K5s5Z5p6oIqlqoXHYNj3d07m51FonhIrFqHD9DTnJdYNLFAVIJq9vQkbIf98L XeS9MGKoFb6D0j42LtZfx2uJysFThswQQaF4w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; b=BMPktczTyIGj4rXeCSv57sYSIO/c348+ecqH0b0B7d27JX6uYQb3kM1td8PpoGighq sQbI29LTlkhjPQA/B9VzBv4I0FDTj61tPNQzR51IUsGhPBfB+rurZqw+7v81Zjw1N2m0 RUfDR1DG2mzvaLGW4Y0iDPqlZN4tWX5aPViD4= Received: by 10.204.48.210 with SMTP id s18mr625438bkf.62.1278185516266; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:31:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from debian.bg45.phnet (gprs37.swisscom-mobile.ch [193.247.250.37]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s17sm6088058bkx.6.2010.07.03.12.31.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C2F9026.4010400@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:31:50 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltaXIgJ8+GLWNvZGVyL3BoY29kZXInIFNlcmJpbmVua28=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100515 Icedove/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: grub-devel@gnu.org References: <63A4C2F2B04E2948B033568534F6C9C578E3D737EE@GVW1095EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> <4C2CEFAB.8090308@gmail.com> <4C2E7941.2050505@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> In-Reply-To: <4C2E7941.2050505@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigEE9A20D7FE649FB4A3BDA653" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Subject: Re: grub2 and hybrid MBR booting 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: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:32:00 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigEE9A20D7FE649FB4A3BDA653 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 07/03/2010 01:41 AM, Isaac Dupree wrote: > On 07/01/10 15:42, Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: >> After moving of partitions containing it's recommended to reinstall >> bootloader > > >> But I don't see the need to standartise the interface between MBR code= >> and the rest. Standartisation is good only for interoperability betwee= n >> different software. But in this case both parts are from the same >> bootloader so it will only reduce flexibility. > > Two pieces of software: bootloader (e.g. GRUB 2) and partition > mover/rearranger (e.g. Parted). > > I say it would be nice if on GPT with recommended GRUB install > (including using BIOS Boot Partition), if we did not "[recommend] to > reinstall bootloader" but instead promised that everything* would keep > working without any bootloader reinstall. > > *except if partition numbering is rearranged and grub.cfg uses > partition numbers not UUIDs, then the grub.cfg may need editing, but > this is no different than a Linux partition's /etc/fstab maybe needing > editing. > > Is it possible for us to promise that?--what are the disadvantages of > doing so? > You answered your question yourself. Every way of locating breaks on some changes. Which exactly depends on chosen way. While fixed LBA is perhaps the worse method for locating a partition others offer advantages only in face of certain kind of changes and not others. You need to know the mechanism well in order to assess if reinstall is needed after your changes. It's easier and safer to just always reinstall= > -Isaac > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel > --=20 Regards Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko --------------enigEE9A20D7FE649FB4A3BDA653 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREKAAYFAkwvkCYACgkQNak7dOguQgle+AEAntv8152LF6sCPmae4wwqf2px IrFrzMF2h6Ai7Tj6V78A/iiG1GF4UvtJrQ0imIiW+nhYuT2JwtSfhVN6GTLuGpr/ =MhLQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigEE9A20D7FE649FB4A3BDA653--