Re: [ot] <rant>grub is great!</rant>
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Timshel Knoll wrote:
> wierd. sound's like you're using the boot/ directory of the partition
> and
> then mounting it on /boot ... you need all the kernels/grub/etc. to be
> in
> the / directory of the partition since it is mounted on /boot ...
I just mounted the small partition to /boot and created a directory
grub (containing the necessary files) there. This ended in a "File
not found". Creating a dir boot/grub on the partition (which is
now /boot/boot/grub in the filesystem) helped grub out of trouble
which is quite strange, thought.
> I've never been a fan of having a separate partition for /boot anyways
> ...
> the / partition should never be more than around 250M IMHO (separate
> /home, /usr and /var partitions are a better idea).
Well, I'll do that for my next installs, too. I've just read that
grub has problems with new ext2 features and so I thought a small
boot partition without this would be a nice idea. Moreover install
disks have a boot partition in the list of partitions to mount ...
Seems to be usual to do so.
> This is not true. I use grub with the /vmlinuz symlink. Simply do a
>
> root (hd0,0)
> kernel (hd0,0)/vmlinuz
> boot
I've done it, I assure you. Grub presented the boot menu and failed
to find a kernel image. I tried several things and ended in the
result that I have to use a kernel on this stupid boot partition.
> Actually, come to think of it it's probably because you're using a
> separate
> /boot that this doesn't work. Symlinks across filesystems don't work in
> grub, as there is no fs info stored in a symlink, only the pathname, and
> grub doesn't parse /etc/fstab ...
Yes, that's perfectly right and that's why I suggested not to use
the boot partition. Didn't I mentioned this clear enough. Anyway it
works for the box in question now.
> This is a good argument for not having a separate /boot, IMHO ... :)
YES. At least if you want to use grub without more trouble than
necessary.
Kind regards
Andreas.
Reply to: