Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:31:49AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
>> moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
>> where a grave bug (bug #47960
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> I don't really see this as a bug, certainly not as grave. The problem
>> seems to be that lilo simply can't handle large images and the default
>> ramdisk just has now hit that limi
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 07:20:36PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
grub doesn't work with root-on-LVM, or other similar cryptic
installations. There, your only option is lilo.
Actually, that's not true. I use root-on-LVM with a /boot partition and
grub 2 (and previously, grub 0.9x). It is my un
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 01:49:40PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 01:28:36PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mercredi 18 juin 2008 à 09:52 +0300, Eric Pozharski a écrit :
> > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > OTOH, aren't most of these
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:31:49AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
> moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
> where a grave bug (bug #479607) is unlikely fixable without severe
> refactoring
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > We still very regularly get installation reports where people use
> > lilo rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant
> > user base. I would say that the activity on the bug report shows
> > the same.
>
> OTOH, are
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 01:28:36PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 18 juin 2008 à 09:52 +0300, Eric Pozharski a écrit :
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > OTOH, aren't most of these choosing lilo over grub only doing so by
> > > habit ?
> >
> > OTOH
Le mercredi 18 juin 2008 à 09:52 +0300, Eric Pozharski a écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > OTOH, aren't most of these choosing lilo over grub only doing so by
> > habit ?
>
> OTOH, aren't most of theses choosing emacs over vim only doing so by
> habit?
The
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
*SKIP*
> OTOH, aren't most of these choosing lilo over grub only doing so by
> habit ?
OTOH, aren't most of theses choosing emacs over vim only doing so by
habit?
--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
--
To U
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > We still very regularly get installation reports where people use lilo
> > rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant user base. I
> > would say that the
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 23:53 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> William Pitcock wrote:
> > * Cope with the growing initramfs issue as best we can, e.g. by
> > displaying a warning to the user that the kernel may not be bootable by
> > lilo due to the 8MiB boundry in liloconfig.
>
> Having only a warning is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
Am Di den 17. Jun 2008 um 12:14 schrieb Peter Palfrader:
> > >> AFAIK grub (at least the default "legacy" version) also still has
> > >> problems with / on XFS. That's the one other case where D-I
> > >> automatically falls back to lilo.
>
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 17, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Frans Pop wrote:
> >> AFAIK grub (at least the default "legacy" version) also still has
> >> problems with / on XFS. That's the one other case where D-I
> >> automatically falls back to lilo.
> > I
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:12:53AM -0400, David Duggins wrote:
I would also have to say that the Linux Community has always been about
freedom and choice.
Not everyone agrees[1] about the choice part.
Having one well working tool is better than having multiple mediocre,
bug
On Jun 17, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
>> AFAIK grub (at least the default "legacy" version) also still has
>> problems with / on XFS. That's the one other case where D-I
>> automatically falls back to lilo.
> I think you mean /boot on XFS. Having / as XFS seems to wo
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55:49PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Having one well working tool is better than having multiple mediocre,
> buggy tools to choose from.
The problem is that we do not have one well working tool. Grub certainly
does not qualify as such and there is no hope it ever will. S
* Mike Bird
| FWIW, adding "-9" to the gzip in mkinitramfs gives a
| 0.5% saving, which may help with some marginal cases.
Re-adding -9 to the update-initramfs call makes update-initramfs take
about three times as long to run on this system, so at least I would
rather not have that switched on b
* William Pitcock:
> I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
> moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
> where a grave bug (bug #479607) is unlikely fixable without severe
> refactoring of the codebase.
BTW, the bug report lacks this infor
Frans Pop wrote:
AFAIK grub (at least the default "legacy" version) also still has problems
with / on XFS. That's the one other case where D-I automatically falls
back to lilo.
I think you mean /boot on XFS. Having / as XFS seems to work fine for me...
Brian May
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Monday 16 June 2008 22:58:34 Mike Bird wrote:
> OTOH using bzip2 instead of gzip saves 10.5% but I have
> no idea how much work it would take to support bzip'd
> initrd's.
If you need to change gzip to $another_compressor, I would go lzma, it
compresses better than gzip and the kernel module
William Pitcock wrote:
> * Cope with the growing initramfs issue as best we can, e.g. by
> displaying a warning to the user that the kernel may not be bootable by
> lilo due to the 8MiB boundry in liloconfig.
Having only a warning is not sufficient for the use of lilo in new
installations! We rea
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 13:58 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> FWIW, adding "-9" to the gzip in mkinitramfs gives a
> 0.5% saving, which may help with some marginal cases.
>
> OTOH using bzip2 instead of gzip saves 10.5% but I have
> no idea how much work it would take to support bzip'd
> initrd's.
>
FWIW, adding "-9" to the gzip in mkinitramfs gives a
0.5% saving, which may help with some marginal cases.
OTOH using bzip2 instead of gzip saves 10.5% but I have
no idea how much work it would take to support bzip'd
initrd's.
--Mike Bird
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:12:53AM -0400, David Duggins wrote:
> I would also have to say that the Linux Community has always been about
> freedom and choice.
Not everyone agrees[1] about the choice part.
Having one well working tool is better than having multiple mediocre,
buggy tools to choose
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 00:31 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> [a lot of stuff]
As many people have brought up usecases not covered by alternatives, the
plan seems to be:
* Cope with the growing initramfs issue as best we can, e.g. by
displaying a warning to the user that the kernel may not be
I would also have to say that the Linux Community has always been about
freedom and choice. Although I use GRUB my self, why should we remove a
useful package that is being used? Wouldn't that take away from the
freedom just a bit? Just because you might not like it, or like another
program
William Pitcock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
> moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
> where a grave bug (bug #479607) is unlikely fixable without severe
> refactoring of the codebase.
Well, grub is also not
I demand that Frans Pop may or may not have written...
> William Pitcock wrote:
[snip]
>> With grub being stable and grub2 approaching stability itself, do we
>> really need lilo anymore? It's not even installed by default anymore, and
>> the only systems I have that are still on lilo are installa
Francesco P. Lovergine writes:
> I had at least a couple of boxes in the past where grub were problematic
> and I used the old good linux loader.
When I installed Lenny on this AMD64 box (ASUS A8V-XE) a few weeks ago Grub
was unable to boot it. I had to go back and reinstall, selecting Lilo.
--
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:54:52AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Lilo has one killer feature that is totally missing from GRUB - the -R
> option. It allows me to upgrade a kernel on remote servers, knowing that
> if the upgrade fails, I will get the original kernel after a few minutes
> withou
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:31:49AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
>
> If we do not need lilo, then I will file a RM bug in the next couple of
> weeks.
>
I had at least a couple of boxes in the past where grub were problematic
and I used the old good linux loader. I generally agree that grub is
m
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> I don't really see this as a bug, certainly not as grave. The problem
>> seems to be that lilo simply can't handle large images and the default
>> ramdisk just has now hit that limit on amd64.
>
> So it
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:53:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:27:11AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 07:20 +, Sune Vuorel
> That doesn't strike me as a valid configuration. Infact,
> it shouldn't work with lilo because lilo wants /boot to be
> on a real device. The fact that it does should be
> considered a bug, not a feature.
Valid or not, the installer actually gives you lilo if you
configure the partitions this wa
(Dropping d-release again.)
On Monday 16 June 2008, peter green wrote:
> >> I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
> >> moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a
> >> shape
>
> Can either version of grub handle all the cases that lilo can?
D-I cu
Le Monday 16 June 2008 12:03:09 Michael Banck, vous avez écrit :
> > On some of my boxes all filesystems are on LVMs and the Debian installer
> > used lilo to boot the systems. It would be nice if these systems can
> > still be used with future Debian versions. Please remove lilo only if
> > there'
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I don't really see this as a bug, certainly not as grave. The problem
> seems to be that lilo simply can't handle large images and the default
> ramdisk just has now hit that limit on amd64.
So it's broken on amd64 for the st
(Dropping d-release for this part of the discussion.)
On Monday 16 June 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > We still very regularly get installation reports where people use
> > lilo rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 09:37:34AM +0200, Joerg Platte wrote:
> Am Montag, 16. Juni 2008 schrieb William Pitcock:
> Hi,
>
> > That patch only makes lilo map LVMs to an appropriate physical device.
> > It does not guarantee that you will be able to boot off of an LV on a
> > physical volume. As suc
I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
Can either version of grub handle all the cases that lilo can? for
example can either of them handle the situation where root is on lvm and
there is no
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 19:27 +1000, Alexander Zangerl wrote:
> please don't remove lilo.
It certaintly won't be happening in lenny. This may be revisited in
lenny+1 though.
William
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/16/08 04:19, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> We still very regularly get installation reports where people use lilo
>> rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant user base. I
William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With grub being stable and grub2 approaching stability itself, do we
> really need lilo anymore? It's not even installed by default anymore,
> and the only systems I have that are still on lilo are installations of
> Debian I have had since Woody.
Deb
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:19:03 +0200, Mike Hommey writes:
>On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> We still very regularly get installation reports where people use lilo
>> rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant user base. I
>> would say that the activity
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> We still very regularly get installation reports where people use lilo
> rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant user base. I
> would say that the activity on the bug report shows the same.
OTOH, aren't most of the
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:53:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:27:11AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 07:20 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> >> > On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock <[
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:04:35AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:54:52AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >>
> > Lilo has one killer feature that is totally missing from GRUB - the -R
> > option. It allows me to upgrade a kernel on remote servers, knowing that
> > if
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:54:52AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> William Pitcock wrote:
>>
>> It seems like moving to grub for everything may be a good choice on the
>> archs where lilo is used.
>>
> Lilo has one killer feature that is totally missing from GRUB - the -R
> option. It allows m
William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
> moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
> where a grave bug (bug #479607) is unlikely fixable without severe
> refactoring of the codebase.
I d
William Pitcock wrote:
> I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
> moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
That's just great. That means that whoever did this just broke an option
that's been available in Debian Installer since forever: to
William Pitcock wrote:
It seems like moving to grub for everything may be a good choice on the
archs where lilo is used.
Lilo has one killer feature that is totally missing from GRUB - the -R
option. It allows me to upgrade a kernel on remote servers, knowing that
if the upgrade fails, I wi
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:27:11AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 07:20 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>> > On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > That doesn't strike me as a valid configuration. Inf
Am Montag, 16. Juni 2008 schrieb William Pitcock:
Hi,
> That patch only makes lilo map LVMs to an appropriate physical device.
> It does not guarantee that you will be able to boot off of an LV on a
> physical volume. As such, the behaviour is still undefined.
>
> Consider a situation where /boot
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:27:11AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 07:20 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That doesn't strike me as a valid configuration. Infact, it shouldn't
> > > work with lilo because l
On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That patch only makes lilo map LVMs to an appropriate physical device.
> It does not guarantee that you will be able to boot off of an LV on a
> physical volume. As such, the behaviour is still undefined.
>
> Consider a situation where /bo
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 07:20 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That doesn't strike me as a valid configuration. Infact, it shouldn't
> > work with lilo because lilo wants /boot to be on a real device. The fact
> > that it does should be c
On 2008-06-16, William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That doesn't strike me as a valid configuration. Infact, it shouldn't
> work with lilo because lilo wants /boot to be on a real device. The fact
> that it does should be considered a bug, not a feature.
lilo-22.8$ head debian/patches/01_d
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 09:08 +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Monday 16 June 2008 07:31:49 William Pitcock, vous avez écrit :
> > With grub being stable and grub2 approaching stability itself, do we
> > really need lilo anymore? It's not even installed by default anymore,
> > and the only syst
Le Monday 16 June 2008 07:31:49 William Pitcock, vous avez écrit :
> With grub being stable and grub2 approaching stability itself, do we
> really need lilo anymore? It's not even installed by default anymore,
> and the only systems I have that are still on lilo are installations of
> Debian I have
Hi,
I am wondering if it is a good idea to remove lilo entirely. At the
moment, lilo has been pulled from testing, and the code is in a shape
where a grave bug (bug #479607) is unlikely fixable without severe
refactoring of the codebase.
With grub being stable and grub2 approaching stability itse
60 matches
Mail list logo
