[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Boot loaders in core/base
lists at baums-on-web.de
Sat Nov 20 15:25:31 CET 2010
Am Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:27:35 +0100
schrieb Pierre Schmitz <pierre at archlinux.de>:
> 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
I'm running a x86_64 system and have grub1 installed without any lib32
dependencies. So, of course it's available on x86_64. Why shall this be
moved to [multilib]?
> 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.
This would be a massive regression because there are several people who
are using reiserfs and other filesystems.
And what has a separate /boot partition to do with the bootloader and
the filesystem? You can use almost every filesystem on the /boot
The best would be if every available bootloader would be moved to
[core] and supported by AIF, so that the user can decide during the
installation which bootloader fits best to him and which bootloader
shall be installed, because there's currently no bootloader which can do
everything. Depending on the partition scheme and the used filesystem
a different bootloader is needed.
And simultaneously every filesystem related package incl. btrfs-utils
e.g. should be moved to [core] and supported by AIF, too. So that the
user can decide during the installation how he wants to partition and
format his drives and which filesystem he wants to use.
> 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
Bad idea and doesn't make much sense until there is a real equivalent
alternative. It's still the most used bootloader I guess.
> * keep grub2 in extra
Should go to [core], too.
> * maybe also move lilo to extra
Not the best idea, too.
> * of course keep all of them on the install cd
Good idea again. But on the install CD there are only [core] packages
as far as I know which makes sense. So all these packages should be
moved to [core].
> What do you think about this? At some point it might not be
> sane/possible to keep grub1 as our default boot loader.
But I don't see this point, yet. It will be sometime in the future
when there's a real alternative which can boot from every possible
partition scheme and filesystem.
More information about the arch-general