Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Gentoo User (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-user/)
-   -   grub vs grub 2 (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-user/632889-grub-vs-grub-2-a.html)

james 02-14-2012 04:36 PM

grub vs grub 2
 
Googling around, I get the impression
that 'grub' is now grub 2. Is that
correct?

In portage I see grub-static
(GRUB Legacy boot loader)
with version numbers that coincide with
"grub" (grub2 ?).

If grub2 has replaced "grub-1" what (gentoo)
version number did grub2 first take take?

What was the last (gentoo) version number for
grub 1 that was actually grub1 , or have I
confused these details?

I cannot seem to find these details in the release
notes or as part of the sourcecode. Any suggestions
on that would be keen.

James

Florian Philipp 02-14-2012 04:53 PM

grub vs grub 2
 
Am 14.02.2012 18:36, schrieb james:
> Googling around, I get the impression
> that 'grub' is now grub 2. Is that
> correct?
>
> In portage I see grub-static
> (GRUB Legacy boot loader)
> with version numbers that coincide with
> "grub" (grub2 ?).
>
> If grub2 has replaced "grub-1" what (gentoo)
> version number did grub2 first take take?
>
> What was the last (gentoo) version number for
> grub 1 that was actually grub1 , or have I
> confused these details?
>
> I cannot seem to find these details in the release
> notes or as part of the sourcecode. Any suggestions
> on that would be keen.
>
> James
>
>

sys-boot/grub has two slots. The default slot 0 with version numbers
around 0.92-0.97 is grub-1 (or grub legacy). Slot 2 with version numbers
around 1.99 is grub-2. Because it is still in development hell, it has
not reached version 2.00.

IIRC, sys-boot/grub-static is mostly there for systems that cannot
compile grub, for example AMD64 no-multilib profiles.

Hope this helps,
Florian Philipp

Stefano Crocco 02-14-2012 05:07 PM

grub vs grub 2
 
Il giorno Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:36:28 +0000 (UTC)
james <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> ha scritto:

> Googling around, I get the impression
> that 'grub' is now grub 2. Is that
> correct?
>
> In portage I see grub-static
> (GRUB Legacy boot loader)
> with version numbers that coincide with
> "grub" (grub2 ?).
>
> If grub2 has replaced "grub-1" what (gentoo)
> version number did grub2 first take take?
>
> What was the last (gentoo) version number for
> grub 1 that was actually grub1 , or have I
> confused these details?
>
> I cannot seem to find these details in the release
> notes or as part of the sourcecode. Any suggestions
> on that would be keen.
>
> James
>
>

If I understand correctly your question, versions 0.9x are grub 1, while
versions 1.9x are grub 2. You can also distinguish them according to their
slots: grub 1 ebuilds have slot 0, while grub 2 ebuilds have slot 2.

Stefano

LK 02-14-2012 05:08 PM

grub vs grub 2
 
On 120214, at 18:53, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 14.02.2012 18:36, schrieb james:
>> Googling around, I get the impression
>> that 'grub' is now grub 2. Is that
>> correct?
>> [...]
> Because it is still in development hell, it has
> not reached version 2.00.

BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves?
Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ?

"mike@trausch.us" 02-14-2012 05:24 PM

grub vs grub 2
 
On 02/14/2012 01:08 PM, LK wrote:
> BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves?
> Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ?

GRUB Legacy (that is, GRUB versions 0.xx) is still the default in
Gentoo. In order to use GRUB 2 (that is, GRUB version 1.99 in Portage)
you'll have to unmask sys-boot/grub-1.99-r2.

GRUB 2 is significantly more convenient and powerful and does not
require the nearly 80 patches that the legacy version does in order to
work properly on the system. It can also manage its own configuration
file using its new grub-mkconfig (grub2-mkconfig in Gentoo) program,
which supports the use of scripts/programs to generate grub.cfg entries
for booting the kernel and other operating systems.

However (at least on my primary workstation) Portage now always removes
grub:0 at depclean time, and always pulls it back in at "emerge -DNua
world" time. It's harmless, though inefficient, and I haven't figured
out how to prevent it from happening. I have even masked grub:0 and it
still pulls it in and installs it, despite being masked.

--- Mike

--
A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic
than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense.
--- Carveth Read, “Logic”

LK 02-14-2012 05:40 PM

grub vs grub 2
 
On 120214, at 19:24, mike@trausch.us wrote:
> On 02/14/2012 01:08 PM, LK wrote:
>> BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves?
>> Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ?
> GRUB Legacy (that is, GRUB versions 0.xx) is still the default in
> Gentoo. In order to use GRUB 2 (that is, GRUB version 1.99 in Portage)
> you'll have to unmask sys-boot/grub-1.99-r2.
The thing is, IMO grub0 is better / simplier.

> GRUB 2 is significantly more convenient and powerful and does not
> require the nearly 80 patches that the legacy version does in order to
> work properly on the system. It can also manage its own configuration
> file using its new grub-mkconfig (grub2-mkconfig in Gentoo) program,
> which supports the use of scripts/programs to generate grub.cfg entries
> for booting the kernel and other operating systems.
As you read above, I prefer grub0.* because it has config files, not
commands which will automize it. For ubuntu I can understand that,
but configuring boot is too simple to require automisation. When
now automatic script fails, is there a way to do it by hand? Ubuntu
disallows editing it by hand. Now I am confused by the 80 patches
for legacy grub =( afaik.

PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you
say how?

THX + TIA.

Alecks Gates 02-14-2012 05:46 PM

grub vs grub 2
 
On Feb 14, 2012 1:41 PM, "LK" <linuxrocksrulers@googlemail.com> wrote:

>

>

> On 120214, at 19:24, mike@trausch.us wrote:

> > On 02/14/2012 01:08 PM, LK wrote:

> >> BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves?

> >> Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ?

> > GRUB Legacy (that is, GRUB versions 0.xx) is still the default in

> > Gentoo. *In order to use GRUB 2 (that is, GRUB version 1.99 in Portage)

> > you'll have to unmask sys-boot/grub-1.99-r2.

> The thing is, IMO grub0 is better / simplier.

>

> > GRUB 2 is significantly more convenient and powerful and does not

> > require the nearly 80 patches that the legacy version does in order to

> > work properly on the system. *It can also manage its own configuration

> > file using its new grub-mkconfig (grub2-mkconfig in Gentoo) program,

> > which supports the use of scripts/programs to generate grub.cfg entries

> > for booting the kernel and other operating systems.

> As you read above, I prefer grub0.* because it has config files, not

> commands which will automize it. For ubuntu I can understand that,

> but configuring boot is too simple to require automisation. When

> now automatic script fails, is there a way to do it by hand? Ubuntu

> disallows editing it by hand. Now I am confused by the 80 patches

> for legacy grub =( afaik.

>

> PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you

> say how?

>

> THX + TIA.

>

>

Yes, you can edit the grub2 boot config files by hand, I do this myself in Gentoo (and the last time I used Ubuntu you could still edit them, but that was a while ago).* You're not tied to the automation.* I prefer grub2 config files, personally.* Definitely not as "simple," of course, but that hardly makes a difference to me.

"mike@trausch.us" 02-14-2012 05:52 PM

grub vs grub 2
 
On 02/14/2012 01:40 PM, LK wrote:
>
> On 120214, at 19:24, mike@trausch.us wrote:
>> On 02/14/2012 01:08 PM, LK wrote:
>>> BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves?
>>> Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ?
>> GRUB Legacy (that is, GRUB versions 0.xx) is still the default in
>> Gentoo. In order to use GRUB 2 (that is, GRUB version 1.99 in Portage)
>> you'll have to unmask sys-boot/grub-1.99-r2.
>
> The thing is, IMO grub0 is better / simplier.
>

I disagree. GRUB Legacy is not the same in any two distributions
because every single distribution patches it differently because it
hasn't had core functionality updated in a very long time. It's pretty
much abandoned by upstream, as well.

I'm not saying that it is bad, but I _am_ saying that it has outlived
its usefulness.

GRUB 2 follows an entirely different architecture.

>> GRUB 2 is significantly more convenient and powerful and does not
>> require the nearly 80 patches that the legacy version does in order to
>> work properly on the system. It can also manage its own configuration
>> file using its new grub-mkconfig (grub2-mkconfig in Gentoo) program,
>> which supports the use of scripts/programs to generate grub.cfg entries
>> for booting the kernel and other operating systems.
>
> As you read above, I prefer grub0.* because it has config files, not
> commands which will automize it. For ubuntu I can understand that,
> but configuring boot is too simple to require automisation. When
> now automatic script fails, is there a way to do it by hand? Ubuntu
> disallows editing it by hand. Now I am confused by the 80 patches
> for legacy grub =( afaik.

Nothing requires you to use the scripts; they simply provide assistance.
If you want, you can absolutely manage your configuration file by hand.
Why you'd want to is beyond me, but it's a choice that you do in fact have.

I use them, because it simplifies my life and it means that I can easily
manage systems' boot loader configuration without having to resort to
forcing all the environments to use the same filenames and
layouts---compile kernel, install kernel, run "grub2-mkconfig -o
/boot/grub2/grub.cfg". Simple. I have too many systems to worry about
messing with configuration files by hand!

If you need to customize the process, you can add, remove, and re-order
scripts in /etc/grub.d. They are named like xx-name, where xx is a
number from 00 to 99.

Of course, if for some reason one of those scripts did break, you can
still boot your system by hand as you were able to do in GRUB Legacy,
with the added bonus that the GRUB 2 environment is much easier to work
in. It also supports partition schemes other than MBR, which is useful
since I use GPT on my systems. It can also natively boot 64-bit kernels
via Multiboot.

> PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you
> say how?

For GRUB Legacy? I'm sorry, but it has been long enough since I have
used it that I couldn't help; there is a configuration directive in the
menu.lst file that you should be able to delete that will get rid of it,
but I don't remember what it was called.

> THX + TIA.

--- Mike

--
A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic
than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense.
--- Carveth Read, “Logic”

Michael Mol 02-14-2012 06:04 PM

grub vs grub 2
 
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM, mike@trausch.us <mike@trausch.us> wrote:
> On 02/14/2012 01:40 PM, LK wrote:
>>
>> On 120214, at 19:24, mike@trausch.us wrote:
>>> On 02/14/2012 01:08 PM, LK wrote:
>>>> BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves?
>>>> Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ?
>>> GRUB Legacy (that is, GRUB versions 0.xx) is still the default in
>>> Gentoo. *In order to use GRUB 2 (that is, GRUB version 1.99 in Portage)
>>> you'll have to unmask sys-boot/grub-1.99-r2.
>>
>> The thing is, IMO grub0 is better / simplier.
>>
>
> I disagree. *GRUB Legacy is not the same in any two distributions
> because every single distribution patches it differently because it
> hasn't had core functionality updated in a very long time. *It's pretty
> much abandoned by upstream, as well.
>
> I'm not saying that it is bad, but I _am_ saying that it has outlived
> its usefulness.
>
> GRUB 2 follows an entirely different architecture.

A detailed elaboration would be nice.

A contrasting migration guide, complete with the how's, where's and
why's would be awesome. (Once one's invested in understanding a tool,
a 1-2-3-itsmagic walkthrough is very discomforting.)

--
:wq

Andrea Conti 02-14-2012 06:29 PM

grub vs grub 2
 
> PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you
> say how?

Remove or comment out any "splashimage" directives from the config file.

***

Re grub2: as long as grub0 works, I really don't care if grub2 is
better, cleaner, shinier, more modern or anything else.

I don't need a freakin' whole OS to boot linux, and having a
configuration that is so convoluted that it *has to* be generated by
running a set of scripts makes no sense at all. I thought the days of m4
and sendmail.cf were over a long time ago...

I am sure grub2 can be made to work, but for a piece of software as
vital as a boot loader, that level of complexity in my opinion is
totally unreasonable and impossible to justify.

andrea


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:10 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.