For people (like me) who've picked up this bug via rc-alert or apt-list-bugs and paniced..
The change is simply that partition numbers start at 1, not 0. See [1] As for the bug itself... I'd suggest a NEWS.Debian file entry that says that grub2 users must do an install-grub and update-grub cycle when upgrading to this version, and make update-grub deal with the new numbering, as well as telling users to update any static grub.cfg stanzas. I guess the hard part is fixing the existing groot line in grub.cfg. Maybe reconvert the boot/root device, and if it comes out as ,1 higher than current groot, make the change, otherwise whinge to the user that the system may be unbootable until the groot is fixed? (Presumably, that's done in the postinst script. However, update-grub shouldn't be run, since install-grub hasn't been run and the change to the groot line in the grub.cfg isn't actually effective until update-grub is run) Given that I don't think you can tell where grub2 was installed to in the first place, detected which version of the grub2 bootsector stuff is in use would be basically ineffective, so update-grub can't be relied up. The only people who'd see this then early-adopters in sid and etch. If 1.95 could be snuck into the etch release, then the list of people who'll get bitten by this shrinks enormously, but that's something for the grub2 maintainers and the RMs to decide amongst themselves. I'd vote for it, since the upgrade process described above is kind of fragile and that way only people who're expected to be able to deal with whinging upgrade scripts will see whinges from the upgrade script. Of course, this'd require updating d-i with the new grub udeb. I get the impression that's harder than just migrating to etch. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/grub-devel@gnu.org/msg02180.html -- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shorter .sig for a more eco-friendly paperless office.
pgptWJAhoFxWP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
