[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Boot loaders in core/base

C Anthony Risinger anthony at extof.me
Sat Nov 20 17:29:41 CET 2010

On Nov 20, 2010, at 9:38 AM, "Lukáš Jirkovský"
<l.jirkovsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 November 2010 15:25, Heiko Baums <lists at baums-on-web.de> wrote:
>> 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
>>> repo.
>> 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
>> partition.
>> 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
>> Good idea.
>>> * 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.
>> Heiko
> I'd keep grub legacy in core and I'd add grub 2 to core too. When grub
> 2 become usable enough it could replace grub legacy completely. And
> for the other bootloaders: I'd scrap lilo – I don't see any reason w
> hy
> to keep it in core, it's inferior compared to grub (or syslinux). I'm
> not yet sure about syslinux.

Is syslinux a 64bit build?  Could we use that by default (why/why
not)?  I use extlinux on all my machines with success.  I would check
myself but I'm on the interstate.

C Anthony [mobile]

More information about the arch-general mailing list