Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 04:43:32PM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:40:41 -0400 (EDT), Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Stephen Powell wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 23:39:52 -0400 (EDT), William Pitcock wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >
> > We're speaking about #505609 I assume?
>
> I hope not. Strictly speaking, 505609 is not a lilo bug. The key is
> that he was still able to boot his old kernel that had been de-installed.
> That's a sure sign that lilo's map installer did not get run during the
> kernel upgrade process.
[skipped]
> If there's a bug here, it's somewhere else in the kernel installation
> process, not in lilo itself. If this so-called bug in lilo is what
> prompted the decision to drop lilo, then the decision was based on bad data.
> lilo, at least in this case, is working as designed. The problem is that
> the lilo map installer did not get run during the kernel installation
> process. I've helped a number of people on debian-user with problems
> like this, and in every case so far running lilo at the command line
> fixed the problem.
I guess your analysis was based on the follow-up by Tomas Pospisek?
Christian Hammers from the same bug thread also stated that the
problem disappeared after executing lilo from the command line.
If that is really the case, then I would advise William to simply
orphan lilo, if for some reason he does not want to work on it
anymore. Removing, IMO, is not justified in this case.
BTW, Stephen, you could also post your analysis on the BTS.
--
Stanislav
Reply to: