<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Doug Ledford <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dledford@redhat.com">dledford@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div>Like I said, not true. The grub package is designed to be updateable without requiring an mbr reinstall. What's more is I had a look at the stage1.[hS] files in the grub shipped in FC-1 and RHEL-5, and just like I said, they are indeed binary compatible. So even if the grub user space application pulls its MBR from a statically linked copy of the MBR, it will still work with pretty much any stage1.5 or stage2 you find in a guest.<br>
</div><div><div></div><br></div></blockquote><div><br>Pretty much any? Hmm are you saying that random other linux distribution's grub binaries are garunteed(or promised/expected) to be binary compatible? Other distributors do have the ability to patch that 1.5 stage code in non-binary compatible ways don't they? We aren't talking strictly about the Fedora/RHEL ecosystem are we? Just because RHEL and Fedora have chosen not to include binary incompatible patches, doesn't mean its a truism across the guest OS landscape does it?<br>
<br>Is that binary compatibility tested for as part of operation? Is that compatibility strictly a consequence of distribution level decision making concerning Fedora and RHEL? Is that binary compatibility guaranteed or promised from other distribution's grub1 variants being shipped? <br>
<br>-jef<br></div></div>