[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")

Harald Braumann <harry@unheit.net> wrote on Tue, 25 May 2010:
> On simple standard system -- one disk, one kernel in /boot, no fancy
> stuff -- it works quite well.

This is enough to use grub2 for new installing of Debian.

> On other systems it often breaks miserably. Updates leave my system
> unbootable every other time. One major problem are incompatible
> versions of the boot loader installed in the MBR and grub.cfg.
> Currently, automatic installation of grub in the MBR is a no-go for me,
> because of #554790 but I can't prevent grub from automatically
> updating grub.cfg which leads to incompatible versions, hence an
> unbootable system. 

And these problems say, we still need an alternative - I would say: LiLO.

William Pitcock <nenolod@dereferenced.org> wrote on Sat, 22 May 2010:
> After some discussion about lilo on #debian-devel in IRC, it has pretty
> much been determined that kernel sizes have crossed the line past where
> lilo can reliably determine the payload size.

But not all kernels are to large - especially the custom kernels - and
LiLO can be used for this special situation. Until which size of kernel 
is LiLO usable?

My suggestion / recommendation is now:

  a) using grub2 as default boot manager for new installations (d-i)
     and for updating grub.

  b) provide LiLO in squeeze as alternative for grub2. The
     limitations must be said while installing the lilo package.
     I think it must not be a proposal in d-i.

Because I still use LiLO for all my systems, I could support the
maintaining of LiLO. Would this a way for you, William?

Fondest regards,
 Joachim Wiedorn

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: