[arch-dev-public] Boot loaders in core/base
Hi, while reviewing the core rebuild list I wondered if we should think about chaining our default boot loader. Note: that wont affect existing setups and people will still be able to use whatever they like. ATM. we have grub1 in core/base and install that by default. The problem is that this project is virtually dead for a long time now and also not available on x86_64. Technically it has to be in the multilib repo. Grub2 is currently in extra. Upstream development is still in flux. Imho its quite heavy and complex. An alternative successor would be extlinux from the syslinux package. It's very simple, easy to configure, actively maintained and reliable. Sure, it only supports booting from ext* and btrfs afaik but to be honest, if you use any other FS you should have a separate /boot even when using grub. Summing up my suggestion for some time in the future would be: * move extlinux/syslinux to core/base * move grub1 to extra/multilib and remove it from base group * keep grub2 in extra * maybe also move lilo to extra * of course keep all of them on the install cd What do you think about this? At some point it might not be sane/possible to keep grub1 as our default boot loader. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
On 11/20/2010 12:27 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
* move grub1 to extra/multilib and remove it from base group
grub1 should at least kept in extra to ensure that older installers are working. multilib repo is not enabled by default on x86_64 systems -- Ionuț
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:35:25 +0200, Ionuț Bîru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 11/20/2010 12:27 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
* move grub1 to extra/multilib and remove it from base group
grub1 should at least kept in extra to ensure that older installers are working. multilib repo is not enabled by default on x86_64 systems
Well afaik aif cannot handle extlinux anyway. So this is just talking about the future. Of course I don't want to break our current netinstall iso. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
Am Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:27:35 +0100 schrieb Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de>:
What do you think about this? At some point it might not be sane/possible to keep grub1 as our default boot loader.
Greetings,
Pierre
I'm using grub-legacy on all my systems. I dislike the option to force everybody to use a separate ext* boot partition. I prefer to keep grub-legacy that is still maintained by the distributions (see heavy Fedora patching) our default boot loader until we think we can replace it with grub(2). Maybe it's already ready for this after the next minor testing releae. It should already be in good state since Ubuntu uses it as the default loader. -Andy
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:42:28 +0100, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:27:35 +0100 schrieb Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de>:
What do you think about this? At some point it might not be sane/possible to keep grub1 as our default boot loader.
I'm using grub-legacy on all my systems. I dislike the option to force everybody to use a separate ext* boot partition.
Don't get me wrong here. I underlined that I wont force anyone to do anything. So one should still be able to use grub and it should also be kept on the install CD.
I prefer to keep grub-legacy that is still maintained by the distributions (see heavy Fedora patching) our default boot loader until we think we can replace it with grub(2). Maybe it's already ready for this after the next minor testing releae. It should already be in good state since Ubuntu uses it as the default loader.
Well, it should be clear that grub1 is a dead end; no matter how much you patch it. I am also not talking about doing something about this tomorrow but some day in the future. The day when we are forced to think about grub1 by something else (read as replacing the default not the package). And in that case I think extlinux is the more simple solution compared to grub2. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
Am Samstag 20 November 2010 schrieb Pierre Schmitz: > On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:42:28 +0100, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> > > wrote: > > Am Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:27:35 +0100 > > > > schrieb Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de>: > >> What do you think about this? At some point it might not be > >> sane/possible to keep grub1 as our default boot loader. > > > > I'm using grub-legacy on all my systems. I dislike the option to force > > everybody to use a separate ext* boot partition. > > Don't get me wrong here. I underlined that I wont force anyone to do > anything. So one should still be able to use grub and it should also be > kept on the install CD. > > > I prefer to keep grub-legacy that is still maintained by the > > distributions (see heavy Fedora patching) our default boot loader until > > we think we can replace it with grub(2). Maybe it's already ready > > for this after the next minor testing releae. It should already be > > in good state since Ubuntu uses it as the default loader. > > Well, it should be clear that grub1 is a dead end; no matter how much > you patch it. I am also not talking about doing something about this > tomorrow but some day in the future. The day when we are forced to think > about grub1 by something else (read as replacing the default not the > package). And in that case I think extlinux is the more simple solution > compared to grub2. - You will need grub2 in the future, for all fancy things like gpt, uefi and such things. - extlinux is good and small but doesn't offer any fancy things. - grub still works for most people, as lilo would do -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
participants (4)
-
Andreas Radke
-
Ionuț Bîru
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Tobias Powalowski