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

Re: lilo about to be dropped?

On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 16:17 +0200, Harald Braumann wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:03:10 +0800
> Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> > 
> > > I also use lilo for /boot on LVM and I also clearly remember that
> > > was the major reason for the previous debate about the removal of
> > > lilo.
> > 
> > Grub2 in lenny and later contains an lvm module:
> > 
> > /usr/lib/grub/i386-pc/lvm.mod
> > 
> > Has anyone who uses lilo for this tried grub2?
> Yes, I do and it works without problems. There are some inconveniences,
> though, with grub2, which might make some stick with LILO:

The LVM support in LILO is hideously broken, so these arguments do not
really matter. It only works in certain conditions and is known to break
horribly if you have say, a kernel spanning multiple PVs.

Only a true idiot boots off an LVM volume anyway, since there is risk of
metadata corruption, etc. The real reasoning for carrying LILO around is
for machines where grub1 does not work, and we have ext2linux for those
situations now.

> * on boot it takes quite some time for grub2 to scan the disks for LVM
> volumes
> * configuration of grub2 is really a PITA
> The is no simple configuration file that one could edit. You have to
> write scripts to add entries.

/boot/grub/{menu.lst,grub.conf} is hard to edit...?

> You can't specify the default entry (only the number of the entry,
> which changes if a new kernel is installed) and there is no
> vmlinuz/vmlinuz.old (unless you add a script that adds these entries)

"default X" in the config file, and "setdefault", works for me.

> You can't specify boot options per entry (there's only a global option
> in /etc/default grub, that applies to all entries).

Sure you can, just don't use update-grub(1) and update it yourself
instead. Same as lilo, really.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: