Re: Use dedicated partition for /boot/grub instead of /boot
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:45:03PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> 2014/08/18 14:57 "Christopher Chavez" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > Questions:
> > 1. Is it the case that the only reason for having a separate /boot was to
> > provide easy access /boot/grub? I.e., was it intentional to provide easy
> > to kernels as well?
> I guess it depends on what you mean by easy access. If you mean, to keep
> the kernel where it can be easily found by the boot manager, yeah, that's
> one of the big reasons.
Old systems used to have a strong restriction on which part of the hard
drive could be read by the initial firmware bootloader. The exact
boundary changed from time to time, as the dcades wore on, but there
was such a restriction often enough that some measure wsas needed so
that the initial boot would sastisfy this restriction. The easy way to
manage this was to have a separte partition for the these files, and
place it near the start of the hard drive. Hence /boot was born.
It's probably wise to keep /boot for this purpose, since one of these
years we're going to hit the next order-of-magitude restriction.
But just what files are subject to such a restriction, and what the
file format of that partition should be probably depende on the
At the moment, /boot and the EFI partition seem to have boot-time
restrictions, either because of firmware or bootloader restrictions.
> That information used to be a lot more available, until some IPidiots
> started trying to claim rights to it.
IPidiots? Can I have more details or a reference on these IPidiots?