On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 05:48:14PM +0100, Vladimir '??-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On 23.03.2011 17:38, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 05:16:48PM +0100, Vladimir '??-coder/phcoder' > > Serbinenko wrote: > >> On 08.02.2011 23:08, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote: > >>> the new 1.99~rc1-2 fails to install to my /dev/md0. 1.98+20100804-14 did > >>> well. > >> It's > >> grub-install /dev/sda > >> and > >> grub-install /dev/sdb > > Yes, but 1.98+20100804 did this automatically with > > grub-install /dev/md0 > > while 1.99~rc1 doesn't appear to do it anymore. > > Hence, I'd classify this a regression. > grub-install /dev/md0 would refer to writing of the first sector of md0, > not of the hosting disk. This makes sense in context of virtual machines > (e.g. kvm /dev/md0). If it did anything else I'd classify it as a bug.
Hmmm, 1.98+20100804 grub-install /dev/md0 did definitely install to both disks BIOS boot partition (or 3 disks - when the 3rd disk was synched in). I verified this more than once when Debian's grub package started offering md-devices as install targets. If you consider this a bug which is fixed now... > > Furthermore, I believe grub-install /dev/md0 should be the preferred way > > because it searches the correct drives themselves and is hence robust > > against changing device names, changing disks, etc. > This would inscribe into another feature request of installing to a > device containing given partition. IT's not yet clear which interface > this will use. ... then please re-consider my bug report a feature request :) Btw.: thanks for answering. regards Mario -- There are two major products that come from Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
