Re: make-kpkg

[Isaac To <kkto@csis.hku.hk>]

>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca> writes:

    >> I use Grub as a bootloader.  After making a kernel .deb using
    >> make-kpkg, I'm running dpkg -i....  Near the end you are asked to if
    >> you want to make a boot block.  What is this?  Is it just an entry in
    >> Grub or LILO?  What I'm most concerned about is being able to boot to
    >> my old kernel if I screwed this one up.

If the old kernel is not yet deleted, you can edit the Grub entry at boot to
replace the kernel file by the old kernel, and boot.  The old kernel will be
booted allowing you to correct the problem.

    Paul> Since LILO is so much better documented, easy to configure, far
    Paul> more widely used, is generally the "assumed" bootloader, and just
    Paul> works, why not just use LILO?

Because Grub provides a lot of functionalities that is not provided by LILO.
E.g., in Grub you can boot a test kernel once without running "grub-install"
(in LILO you must run "lilo" after rewriting lilo.conf).  Even filename
completion will work, so you can still find your kernel or initrd even if
you forget their exact names.  You can change any boot parameters before
that, so you don't need nearly as many "emergency" boot entries as in LILO.
Grub understand the filesystem, so you don't need to worry about any utility
moving the actual location of the kernel on the disk---you can safely cp
your kernel to somewhere else and mv it back (or run your defragmentor), and
there is no need to rerun "grub-install" as in LILO (rerun "lilo").  Grub
also allow some entries to be protected by a password, so you can have your
Windows boot entry without worrying about somebody boot to Windows and trash
your Linux partition (because only you, knowing the password, can boot to
Windows), and at the same time allow anybody to boot the Linux partition and
login there.

And I don't consider Grub to be much less documented than LILO.

Regards,
Isaac.