On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 02:44:01PM -0400, Drake Donahue wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Michael George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Grub upgrade note.
>
>
>> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 08:49:13AM -0500, Barry Schwartz wr
- Original Message -
From: "Michael George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Grub upgrade note.
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 08:49:13AM -0500, Barry Schwartz wrote:
Mark Haney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skribis:
> I've done some grub insta
Michael George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skribis:
> I guess I'd better downgrade back to what I had prior until I figure
> that out...
One day I might simply build grub outside of Portage and put it in
package.provided. It's not something I want automagically upgraded.
--
Barry SCHWARTZ / Esperan
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 08:49:13AM -0500, Barry Schwartz wrote:
> Mark Haney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skribis:
> > I've done some grub installs in the past, but this is a new one on me. What
> > exactly does install the new version's 'stage1' mean? How do I do what
> > this is telling me to do?
>
>
Raffaele BELARDI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 06
May 2008 15:18:01 +0200:
> I confirm that passing -I 128 to mkfs.ext2 fixes the problem, now grub
> finds the stage files and installs happily on the ext2 partition.
>
> thanks again,
Happy to be of help,
Mark Haney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skribis:
> I've done some grub installs in the past, but this is a new one on me. What
> exactly does install the new version's 'stage1' mean? How do I do what
> this is telling me to do?
That's the part where you write a new MBR. It's explained in the
Gentoo GRUB
I just upgraded grub and got this note at the end.
*** IMPORTANT NOTE: you must run grub and install
* the new version's stage1 to your MBR. Until you do,
* stage1 and stage2 will still be the old version, but
* later stages will be the new version, which could
* cause problems such as an un
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 10:38 +0200, Raffaele Belardi wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 11:33 -0400, Drake Donahue wrote:
> > >
> > > If I'm correct you're running into the ext3 large inode issue. Briefly,
> > > old versions used 128 byte inodes, while newer versions use 256 byte
> > > inodes by defaul
