Bug#284930: grub install does not work if /boot/grub is on a separate partition

[Thomas Hofer <th@monochrom.at>]

Otavio Salvador wrote: [Thursday 09 December 2004 17:47]
> || On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 16:28:38 +0100
> || Thomas Hofer <th@monochrom.at> wrote:
>
> th> I'd like to use a separate partition for /boot/grub, because I
> have a th> heavy multiboot configuration and I don't like to lose my
> menu.lst when th> I reinstall the "master" OS.
>
> I didn't understand one thing. You have one partition for /boot and
> *only* for /boot/grub?
>
> If you have /boot on separated partition it is a serious bug because
> a lot of people use it in this way. Otherwise, it can be leave for
> post-sarge IMHO.

/boot is part of the root filesystem (hda6), and hda5 is mounted 
on /boot/grub. There are only the root partition and the partition that 
is mounted on /boot/grub.

I'd like to explain my motivation: I'm running 5-8 differnent operating 
systems on a single testing machine, and they all want to install their 
own bootloaders. I handle this mess by having a "master grub" which is 
installed in the MBR and whose stage files and menu.lst reside 
on /dev/hda5 (all contents of /boot/grub). I think of it as an 
independent bootloader that is not part of any of the installed 
systems. When I install a new operating system, I install its 
bootloader into the same partition as the operating system itself. Then 
I create a new menu.lst entry in the /dev/hda5 partition to chainload 
the "slave bootloader" using the "master grub".

A year ago I used Suse to set up the master grub using the partition 
layout described above - and it worked without a problem. Lately I 
deleted the whole disk and started over again, but this time I wanted 
to use Debian to set up the "master grub". That didn't work, so I filed 
the bug. 

I agree that very few people need or want such a partition layout. So I 
think it's OK when this bug is handled with low priority.

Thank you for your time,
Thomas.