On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:14:10 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:


>>> Which, generally speaking, it translates into...? I mean, what are
>>> those "block lists" and how are they effectively affecting the boot
>>> process from a user's point of view?
>>
>> Let's assume that grub1/grub2 have to load "/boot/grub/camaleon" in
>> order to boot.
>>
>> If they're using block lists, they'll locate that file as starting on
>> xxx block of yyy partition.
>>
>> If they're using an intermediate stage (grub1's stage 1.5 or grub2's
>> core.img), they'll locate that file by name.
>>
>> Block lists are supposed to be less reliable/more fragile/(fill in with
>> the negative flavor that suits you).
>
> I'm not sure to had get it (sorry, I must be a bit dense...). Can you
> provide a user case for someone using block lists and another case when
> they're not in use?

I've explained twice (IIRC; I'm replying quite late to this thread
because I've been busy...) and I'm not sure that I'm going to do a
better job a third time but I'll try.

The block lists are used when grub's installed in a PBR because
there's no space for a stage 1.5/core.img (which can read some
filesystems) so the next step in the boot process has to be encoded
and found using the blocks that it occupies on the disk.


>>> On systems with multiple operating systems in the same hard disk I've
>>> always found a more dangerous approach to install GRUB (or any other
>>> bootloader) in the MBR that inside a partition because you completely
>>> relay on the bootloder capabilities to boot all of the installed
>>> systems and also the MBR could be always overwritten when you install a
>>> Windows system.
>>
>> When multi-booting Linux distributions, there's no problem installing
>> grub in the MBR. I have a netbook on which quantal, rawhide, and sid are
>> installed and grub's uninstalled in rawhide and sid and installed in the
>> MBR via quantal.
>
> Booting multiple linux or *nix flavours can be also tricky when using
> GRUB legacy with different filesystems (that is, GRUB legacy cannot
> directly boot from ext4 unless it has been patched, IIRC).
>
>> When multi-booting Linux and Windows, installing grub in the MBR *can*
>> be hazardous to your health and that of your box...
>
> Yes, the problem arises when windows is being reinstalled afterwards,
> users will then need to reinstall GRUB all over again.

More than that. Some Windows licensing and anti-virus/malware software
installs stuff into the post-MBR gap so grub, on an msdos-labeled disk
has to fight for space there...


>>> Why does openSUSE provide such option while others no and what kind of
>>> changes generates? As I said, I don't know, maybe option a) writes
>>> specific GRUB code into the MBR while option b) uses generic bootstrap
>>> data. Differences between the two? That a) does not need the bootable
>>> flag to be present while b) does? Who knows :-?
>>
>> No worries.
>>
>> I've done some googling...
>>
>> 1) The generic boot code's the DOS MBR code that
>> fdisk/fixmbr/bootrec/bootsect writes to the MBR with the right
>> option(s). The DOS MBR code's less sophisticated that grub's; it simply
>> loads the partition marked active.
>
> Ah, thanks for confirming.

You're welcome.


>> 2) OpenSUSE does this because it doesn't believe in installing grub in
>> the MBR (but its installer allows you to do so).
>
> That can be indeed the reason although their installer defaults change
> over the time, I can't say what's the current proposed setup, if
> installing GRUB into the MBR or dropping the bootloader into a partition.
> Or maybe they just adjust this value "on the fly" based on the user's
> disk layout, I can't recall... what I remeber from the openSUSE installer
> is that:
>
> 1/ It was very powerful and fully customizable (from a user's point of
> view).
>
> 1/ It still provided GRUB Legacy (openSUSE delayed the migration to GRUB2
> precisely because of this, the integration between YaST and GRUB2 was not
> an easy task).

I don't see why providing grub1 is a plus. This autumn'll be the
3-year anniversary of Ubuntu defaulting to grub2. It was a premature
release except for the use of 9.10 as a grub2 "have fun, hit some
bugs, and file bug reports" step for 10.04 LTS. The v1.98 that ships
in Squeeze and 10.04 isn't as good or as featureful as the latest
grub2 but it's good.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SyF5wySFaoUyT5fkuDY530g-v6gdhaoYOESehbMf2UQBA@mail.gmail.com

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:50:44 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I'm not sure to had get it (sorry, I must be a bit dense...). Can you
>> provide a user case for someone using block lists and another case when
>> they're not in use?
>
> I've explained twice (IIRC; I'm replying quite late to this thread
> because I've been busy...) and I'm not sure that I'm going to do a
> better job a third time but I'll try.

Yes, sorry, but what you call "block lists" is what I've been using since
many years with no problem. That's why I find strange this is being
"demonized" :-?

> The block lists are used when grub's installed in a PBR because there's
> no space for a stage 1.5/core.img (which can read some filesystems) so
> the next step in the boot process has to be encoded and found using the
> blocks that it occupies on the disk.

Then I have to conclude that block lists are only used when the booloader
is installed in the first sector of a disk partition, right?

(...)

>>> When multi-booting Linux and Windows, installing grub in the MBR *can*
>>> be hazardous to your health and that of your box...
>>
>> Yes, the problem arises when windows is being reinstalled afterwards,
>> users will then need to reinstall GRUB all over again.
>
> More than that. Some Windows licensing and anti-virus/malware software
> installs stuff into the post-MBR gap so grub, on an msdos-labeled disk
> has to fight for space there...

Yet another reason for leaving untouched the MBR when using those tools.

(...)

>>> 2) OpenSUSE does this because it doesn't believe in installing grub in
>>> the MBR (but its installer allows you to do so).
>>
>> That can be indeed the reason although their installer defaults change
>> over the time, I can't say what's the current proposed setup, if
>> installing GRUB into the MBR or dropping the bootloader into a
>> partition. Or maybe they just adjust this value "on the fly" based on
>> the user's disk layout, I can't recall... what I remeber from the
>> openSUSE installer is that:
>>
>> 1/ It was very powerful and fully customizable (from a user's point of
>> view).
>>
>> 1/ It still provided GRUB Legacy (openSUSE delayed the migration to
>> GRUB2 precisely because of this, the integration between YaST and GRUB2
>> was not an easy task).
>
> I don't see why providing grub1 is a plus.

It's not seen as a plus but it required time and resources to migrate to
GRUB2 because of the YasT tool which is in the end what manages most
aspects of the openSUSE core system. I can't say for sure but I can put
my hand in the fire that delaying the integration of GRUB2 was mainly
based on technicallities and because of their userbase, to avoid them
from many problems and unwanted situations.

> This autumn'll be the 3-year anniversary of Ubuntu defaulting to grub2.
> It was a premature release except for the use of 9.10 as a grub2 "have
> fun, hit some bugs, and file bug reports" step for 10.04 LTS. The v1.98
> that ships in Squeeze and 10.04 isn't as good or as featureful as the
> latest grub2 but it's good.

Debian derived distributions lead the migration to GRUB2, which is fine,
but for the rest of the distributions with non-rolling release cycles
which also have a reduced number of users (in comparison to Debian-based
ones) the migration step had to be done with lot of careful.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv3hcg$vb5$8@dough.gmane.org

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:50:44 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:


>>> I'm not sure to had get it (sorry, I must be a bit dense...). Can you
>>> provide a user case for someone using block lists and another case when
>>> they're not in use?
>>
>> I've explained twice (IIRC; I'm replying quite late to this thread
>> because I've been busy...) and I'm not sure that I'm going to do a
>> better job a third time but I'll try.
>
> Yes, sorry, but what you call "block lists" is what I've been using since
> many years with no problem. That's why I find strange this is being
> "demonized" :-?

I'm demonizing them but the grub developers certainly do given the
message that you get when you install grub to a PBR/VBR.


>> The block lists are used when grub's installed in a PBR because there's
>> no space for a stage 1.5/core.img (which can read some filesystems) so
>> the next step in the boot process has to be encoded and found using the
>> blocks that it occupies on the disk.
>
> Then I have to conclude that block lists are only used when the booloader
> is installed in the first sector of a disk partition, right?

Yes, AFAIK; although there might be way to install grub to an MBR and
use block lists.


>>>> When multi-booting Linux and Windows, installing grub in the MBR *can*
>>>> be hazardous to your health and that of your box...
>>>
>>> Yes, the problem arises when windows is being reinstalled afterwards,
>>> users will then need to reinstall GRUB all over again.
>>
>> More than that. Some Windows licensing and anti-virus/malware software
>> installs stuff into the post-MBR gap so grub, on an msdos-labeled disk
>> has to fight for space there...
>
> Yet another reason for leaving untouched the MBR when using those tools.

Very true, but I think that the grub developers have found a way around that.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SwotjEMTVscfBr6cZ8CczA4j97cmF7Q1mmQMd5bN4H+j w@mail.gmail.com

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:03:12 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:50:44 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> I'm not sure to had get it (sorry, I must be a bit dense...). Can you
>>>> provide a user case for someone using block lists and another case
>>>> when they're not in use?
>>>
>>> I've explained twice (IIRC; I'm replying quite late to this thread
>>> because I've been busy...) and I'm not sure that I'm going to do a
>>> better job a third time but I'll try.
>>
>> Yes, sorry, but what you call "block lists" is what I've been using
>> since many years with no problem. That's why I find strange this is
>> being "demonized" :-?
>
> I'm demonizing them but the grub developers certainly do given the
> message that you get when you install grub to a PBR/VBR.

(...)

Yes, I read about it. But this warning has to be new or at least I don't
recall GRUB legacy showing this notice when you were going to install
GRUB into a partition instead the MBR :-?

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv69jt$ltk$11@dough.gmane.org

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:03:12 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 06:50:44 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> I'm not sure to had get it (sorry, I must be a bit dense...). Can you
>>>>> provide a user case for someone using block lists and another case
>>>>> when they're not in use?
>>>>
>>>> I've explained twice (IIRC; I'm replying quite late to this thread
>>>> because I've been busy...) and I'm not sure that I'm going to do a
>>>> better job a third time but I'll try.
>>>
>>> Yes, sorry, but what you call "block lists" is what I've been using
>>> since many years with no problem. That's why I find strange this is
>>> being "demonized" :-?
>>
>> I'm demonizing them but the grub developers certainly do given the
>> message that you get when you install grub to a PBR/VBR.
>
> Yes, I read about it. But this warning has to be new or at least I don't
> recall GRUB legacy showing this notice when you were going to install
> GRUB into a partition instead the MBR :-?

"I'm demonizing them" should've been "I'm NOT demonizing them"...

I have no idea why the grub developers have decided to label the
installation to a PBR a bad thing given that it works just as well (or
as badly, depending on your point of view) with grub2 as grub1.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SwqoKD9O-xV15caN0X0wx4CmLC1+y-xvXHMGYHc5idB6Q@mail.gmail.com

On Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 10:56:09 -0400, Tom H wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I read about it. But this warning has to be new or at least I don't
> > recall GRUB legacy showing this notice when you were going to install
> > GRUB into a partition instead the MBR :-?
>
> "I'm demonizing them" should've been "I'm NOT demonizing them"...
>
> I have no idea why the grub developers have decided to label the
> installation to a PBR a bad thing given that it works just as well (or
> as badly, depending on your point of view) with grub2 as grub1.

Section 3.4 of

http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub.html

discusses the issues and offers a recommendation. Also, message #16 at

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=542424

touches on the reason why there is now a more visible warning.

> With grub-legacy it's exactly the same.
> We just decided to make it more clear in grub2 that
> blocklists aren't that great.

The proposal to introduce the warning may be seen here:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2009-05/msg00004.html




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120731163401.GZ6660@desktop

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:34:01 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Tue 31 Jul 2012 at 10:56:09 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, I read about it. But this warning has to be new or at least I
>> > don't recall GRUB legacy showing this notice when you were going to
>> > install GRUB into a partition instead the MBR :-?
>>
>> "I'm demonizing them" should've been "I'm NOT demonizing them"...
>>
>> I have no idea why the grub developers have decided to label the
>> installation to a PBR a bad thing given that it works just as well (or
>> as badly, depending on your point of view) with grub2 as grub1.
>
> Section 3.4 of
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub.html
>
> discusses the issues and offers a recommendation.

Which completely differs from their last doc:

http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/legacy/grub.html#Installing-GRUB-natively

> Also, message #16 at
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=542424
>
> touches on the reason why there is now a more visible warning.

He! I have to solidarize with the bug reporter >:-)

> > With grub-legacy it's exactly the same. We just decided to make
> > it more clear in grub2 that blocklists aren't that great.

So finally it discloses as a simple "recommendation". Fine then. The
warning also states that using blocklists is the only way in some
disk layouts.

> The proposal to introduce the warning may be seen here:
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2009-05/msg00004.html

***
This patch improves error messages in grub-setup, and adds a few
warnings when requested to install in odd layouts.
***

I wonder what they consider an "odd layout". Four primary partitions
and the bootloader installed at the first boot sector of the second
partition, for instance? I hope no :-)

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jv93od$gv6$13@dough.gmane.org