Bug#174348: marked as done (insufficient choice for boot loader location)
Your message dated Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:43:07 +0100
with message-id <20021226114307.GA20376@zombie.inka.de>
and subject line Bug#174348: insufficient choice for boot loader location
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 26 Dec 2002 11:12:30 +0000
>From zefram@fysh.org Thu Dec 26 05:12:29 2002
Return-path: <zefram@fysh.org>
Received: from (bowl.fysh.org) [81.5.149.242] (mail)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18RVwD-0005kJ-00; Thu, 26 Dec 2002 05:12:29 -0600
Received: from zefram by bowl.fysh.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 18RVwC-00020x-00; Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:12:28 +0000
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:12:28 +0000
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: insufficient choice for boot loader location
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021226111228.GA3957@fysh.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: Zefram <zefram@fysh.org>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0
tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: install
Version: woody
After the installer has put together a minimal system, there is a stage
where it wants to install a boot loader, in preparation to boot the new
system. The usual process is to install LILO's boot sector somewhere on
a hard drive. The installer gives a menu of possible locations for LILO,
but the menu isn't extensive enough.
The machine I've just been installing Debian on has three IDE hard drives,
/dev/hd{a,b,c}, of which only /dev/hdb was initially to be used for the
Debian install. Installing the base system worked, but the LILO install
menu looked something like:
/dev/hda Install LILO in the MBR (use this if unsure).
/dev/hdb1 Install LILO in the root partition's boot sector.
Apparently someone thinks that the computer has only one MBR, which
was news to me since I had been planning to install LILO in the MBR
on /dev/hdb. (The BIOS on this machine can be configured to boot from
*any* of the fixed disks, in addition to removable media.)
Now, the MBR of the first disk is a good default location for the boot
loader. I don't want to change that aspect of the menu. There are two
things that I think ought to change in the menu. Firstly, that option
ought to be labelled accurately, as "the MBR of the first disk" rather
than simply "the MBR".
Secondly, there *must* be some way to install LILO in a location other
than the two locations that are (quite reasonably) suggested. One way
to do this would be to extend the menu with other options, such as "the
MBR of the disk containing the boot partition" (which is what I wanted).
But that would get unwieldy if one tried to cover every possibility;
e.g., I could conceivably have wanted LILO in the MBR on /dev/hdc.
What I suggest instead is an option of "somewhere else (please specify)",
which would then ask for a device name to pass to LILO.
Style gurus may now debate whether the type-in location thing should
actually be the only way to specify where to install LILO. It could
default to the first disk, with explanatory text describing the reasonable
alternatives. This would be, I think, stylistically consistent with
most other configuration options in the installer.
A friend of mine suggested that I could have worked around the
excessively restrictive menu by switching to the shell on tty2 and
running LILO manually. I had indeed discovered the shell, and had a
look around the install environment. (Thanks, btw, for making the shell
available right at the beginning of installation. One of my gripes with
Red Hat's installer is that one has to get past a couple of troublesome
configuration screens before the shell is started.) I didn't consider
running LILO manually because, this being an install process, I had no
expectation that LILO would be run in the normal manner, with the config
file in the normal place, such that I could apply my knowledge of LILO
to modify the configuration. If this kind of workaround is intended
to be available, it would be nice if the install manual could mention
which parts of the install can sensibly be done manually.
-zefram
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 174348-done) by bugs.debian.org; 26 Dec 2002 14:43:42 +0000
>From inet@zombie.inka.de Thu Dec 26 08:43:41 2002
Return-path: <inet@zombie.inka.de>
Received: from quechua.inka.de (mail.inka.de) [193.197.184.2] (mail)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18RZEa-000790-00; Thu, 26 Dec 2002 08:43:41 -0600
Received: from zombie.inka.de (nobody@[127.0.0.1])
by mail.inka.de with uucp (rmailwrap 0.5)
id 18RZEZ-0003dP-00; Thu, 26 Dec 2002 15:43:39 +0100
Received: from inet by zombie with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 18RWPr-0005aW-00; Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:43:07 +0100
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:43:07 +0100
From: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>
To: Zefram <zefram@fysh.org>, 174348-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#174348: insufficient choice for boot loader location
Message-ID: <20021226114307.GA20376@zombie.inka.de>
References: <[🔎] 20021226111228.GA3957@fysh.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20021226111228.GA3957@fysh.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: Eduard Bloch <inet@zombie.inka.de>
Delivered-To: 174348-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-15.1 required=5.0
tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,
TO_LOCALPART_EQ_REAL,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
#include <hallo.h>
* Zefram [Thu, Dec 26 2002, 11:12:28AM]:
> /dev/hda Install LILO in the MBR (use this if unsure).
> /dev/hdb1 Install LILO in the root partition's boot sector.
>
> Apparently someone thinks that the computer has only one MBR, which
> was news to me since I had been planning to install LILO in the MBR
> on /dev/hdb. (The BIOS on this machine can be configured to boot from
> *any* of the fixed disks, in addition to removable media.)
How many users use a such config?
> Now, the MBR of the first disk is a good default location for the boot
> loader. I don't want to change that aspect of the menu. There are two
> things that I think ought to change in the menu. Firstly, that option
> ought to be labelled accurately, as "the MBR of the first disk" rather
> than simply "the MBR".
That is the MBR that is actually beeing used. On 99% of the boxes. If
you are able to hack around boot-loaders config, you should also be able
to fix lilo's setup.
> Secondly, there *must* be some way to install LILO in a location other
> than the two locations that are (quite reasonably) suggested. One way
You repeat the first request. Why "must"? And how should we make sure
that lots of dumb users choose the correct MBR when they get the choice
("hey, dude, my Linux is on hdf so I choose hdf").
> A friend of mine suggested that I could have worked around the
> excessively restrictive menu by switching to the shell on tty2 and
> running LILO manually. I had indeed discovered the shell, and had a
That is what this shell is for. Since the features you request are
questionable and require lots of changes in the C code in Debian STABLE,
I am closing this bug report.
> running LILO manually because, this being an install process, I had no
No install process can detect everythink for you. A normal user has his
DOS-like MBR in /dev/hdb so installing LILO into hdb1 would work fine.
> expectation that LILO would be run in the normal manner, with the config
> file in the normal place, such that I could apply my knowledge of LILO
> to modify the configuration. If this kind of workaround is intended
> to be available, it would be nice if the install manual could mention
> which parts of the install can sensibly be done manually.
And what? Install LILO into hdb1 and a sample config is installed onto
the target system, to be edited by you. I do not see a good reason for
too much confusing documentation for << 1% of users.
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
<CHS> argl bin i deppert
-- #debian.de
Reply to: