grub2 cfg errors in 18

[Frank McCormick]

Still trying to discover the cause of errors being generated when 
grub2-mkconfig is run.
Tne problem first surfaced after a new kernel during a recent update on 
Fedora 18. The error was something along the lines of "can't find a 
usable template" .
So I tried to manually generate a grub.cfg file using grub2-mkconfig. It 
says there are errors in the generated file ..it refers to a line about 
TBOOT..whatever that is.

Can anyone offers suggestions ?

Thanks

[Bill Davidsen]

Frank McCormick wrote:
> Still trying to discover the cause of errors being generated when grub2-mkconfig
> is run.
> Tne problem first surfaced after a new kernel during a recent update on Fedora
> 18. The error was something along the lines of "can't find a usable template" .
> So I tried to manually generate a grub.cfg file using grub2-mkconfig. It says
> there are errors in the generated file ..it refers to a line about
> TBOOT..whatever that is.
>
> Can anyone offers suggestions ?

Maybe. I have been looking at this issue, and can at least give you a little 
information. The fedup generates a dubious boot file in /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, 
which contains both a SYSFONT= and KEYTABLE= options. Removing those will avoid 
the error messages but not make the update boot work.

I'm still working on this as I type, so I may have more later.

[Frank McCormick]

On 02/03/13 09:00 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Frank McCormick wrote:
> > Still trying to discover the cause of errors being generated when 
> > grub2-mkconfig
> > is run.
> > Tne problem first surfaced after a new kernel during a recent update 
> > on Fedora
> > 18. The error was something along the lines of "can't find a usable 
> > template" .
> > So I tried to manually generate a grub.cfg file using grub2-mkconfig. 
> > It says
> > there are errors in the generated file ..it refers to a line about
> > TBOOT..whatever that is.
> >
> > Can anyone offers suggestions ?
>
> Maybe. I have been looking at this issue, and can at least give you a 
> little information. The fedup generates a dubious boot file in 
> /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, which contains both a SYSFONT= and KEYTABLE= 
> options. Removing those will avoid the error messages but not make the 
> update boot work.
>
> I'm still working on this as I type, so I may have more later.

Very interesting...am I one of the very few affected by this ?? I 
found a bug on bugzilla
that referred to programs in the util-linux package as causing the 
problem...they were apparently
updated but that didn't solve my problem. For now I have grub installed 
from my Debian partition so the lack of a working grub.cfg
doesn't cause me major problems.

[Reindl Harald]

Am 03.03.2013 13:50, schrieb Frank McCormick:
> Very interesting...am I one of the very few affected by this ?? I found a bug on bugzilla
> that referred to programs in the util-linux package as causing the problem...they were apparently
> updated but that didn't solve my problem

and you made sure the damage was fixed?

* /etc/mtab is there AND a symlink
* "which ld" gives a correct output

[harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ LANG=C; stat /etc/mtab
  File: '/etc/mtab' -> '/proc/mounts'
  Size: 12              Blocks: 0          IO Block: 4096   symbolic link
Device: 901h/2305d      Inode: 1178629     Links: 1
Access: (0777/lrwxrwxrwx)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: (    0/    root)
Access: 2013-02-06 11:42:55.191988840 +0100
Modify: 2013-02-06 11:42:55.191988840 +0100
Change: 2013-02-06 11:42:55.191988840 +0100
 Birth: -

[harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ which ld
/usr/bin/ld

[Frank McCormick]

On 03/03/2013 11:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 03.03.2013 13:50, schrieb Frank McCormick:
> > Very interesting...am I one of the very few affected by this ?? I found a bug on bugzilla
> > that referred to programs in the util-linux package as causing the problem...they were apparently
> > updated but that didn't solve my problem
>
> and you made sure the damage was fixed?
> /etc/mtab is there AND a symlink
> "which ld" gives a correct output

There is no /etc/mtab on my machine...there is a mtab.fuselock with 
a size of 0
     I tried to create an mtab symlink to /proc/mounts. It would not 
allow me.

In the /proc directory, mounts  is a symlink to /self/mounts.
> [harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ LANG=C; stat /etc/mtab
>    File: '/etc/mtab' -> '/proc/mounts'
>    Size: 12              Blocks: 0          IO Block: 4096   symbolic link
> Device: 901h/2305d      Inode: 1178629     Links: 1
> Access: (0777/lrwxrwxrwx)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: (    0/    root)
> Access: 2013-02-06 11:42:55.191988840 +0100
> Modify: 2013-02-06 11:42:55.191988840 +0100
> Change: 2013-02-06 11:42:55.191988840 +0100
>   Birth: -
> [harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ which ld
> /usr/bin/ld

which ld on my machine comes up with /bin/ld...
      /usr/bin/has a symlink which point to /etc/alternatives/ld

Why is a so screwed up ? The installation was made about
4 months ago from the official release.
>

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:33:58 -0500, Frank McCormick wrote:
> > [harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ which ld
> > /usr/bin/ld
>   which ld on my machine comes up with /bin/ld...

Consider $PATH.

$ which ld
  /usr/bin/ld
  $ su -
  Password:
  # which ld
  /bin/ld
>   /usr/bin/ld has a symlink which point to /etc/alternatives/ld

Correct.

[Reindl Harald]

Am 03.03.2013 17:33, schrieb Frank McCormick:
> > and you made sure the damage was fixed?
> > /etc/mtab is there AND a symlink
> > "which ld" gives a correct output
>
> There is no /etc/mtab on my machine...

and you wonder about anything?
> there is a mtab.fuselock with a size of 0

does nto interest in this context (Google: fuse)
> I tried to create an mtab symlink to /proc/mounts. It would not allow me.

sorry but "It would not allow me" is a really stupid answer
what about posting input and output?

* did you do it as root because naturally this is a root-task
* ln -s /proc/mounts /etc/mtab
> In the /proc directory, mounts  is a symlink to /self/mounts.

yes but this does not help you because /etc/mtab is missing
> > [harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ which ld
> > /usr/bin/ld
>  which ld on my machine comes up with /bin/ld...
>  /usr/bin/has a symlink which point to /etc/alternatives/ld
>
> Why is a so screwed up ? The installation was made about
> 4 months ago from the official release

this doe snot matter
/bin and /usr/bin is the same after UsrMove

since i am pdeantic i fixed as much as possible to point
directly to /usr/bin because why did we made UsrMove if we
rely on the symlinks forever and YES this si critism for
EVERY package-manager which does not fix it's crap

[Frank McCormick]

On 03/03/2013 11:42 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 03.03.2013 17:33, schrieb Frank McCormick:
> > > and you made sure the damage was fixed?
> > > /etc/mtab is there AND a symlink
> > > "which ld" gives a correct output

Sorry, I stand corrected....it's early.

[frank@localhost etc]$ stat mtab
   File: ‘mtab’ -> ‘/proc/mounts’
   Size: 12              Blocks: 0          IO Block: 4096   symbolic link
Device: 805h/2053d      Inode: 5242886     Links: 1
Access: (0777/lrwxrwxrwx)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: (    0/ root)
Access: 2013-03-02 14:27:44.925020411 -0500
Modify: 2013-02-28 19:32:31.454657287 -0500
Change: 2013-02-28 19:32:31.454657287 -0500
  Birth: -
[frank@localhost etc]$
> > In the /proc directory, mounts  is a symlink to /self/mounts.
> > > [harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ which ld
> > > /usr/bin/ld
> >   which ld on my machine comes up with /bin/ld...
> >   /usr/bin/has a symlink which point to /etc/alternatives/ld
> >
> >
> > this does not matter
> > /bin and /usr/bin is the same after UsrMove

What does not matter? That which ld comes up with /bin/ld ?
> > since i am pdeantic i fixed as much as possible to point
> > directly to /usr/bin because why did we made UsrMove if we
> > rely on the symlinks forever and YES this si critism for
> > EVERY package-manager which does not fix it's crap

??

I modified root's PATH to ensure /usr/bin was first...which ld 
now result in /usr/bin/ld....
but   grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg as root still generates syntax
errors in the output file.

With every new kernel grubby complains it could not find a usable template.

[Reindl Harald]

Am 03.03.2013 18:18, schrieb Frank McCormick:
> > > this does not matter
> > > /bin and /usr/bin is the same after UsrMove
>
> What does not matter? That which ld comes up with /bin/ld ?

clearly yes

/bin is a symlink to /usr/bin
/sbin is a symlink to /usr/sbin

both are the same files

[Frank McCormick]

On 03/03/2013 12:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 03.03.2013 18:18, schrieb Frank McCormick:
> > > > this does not matter
> > > > /bin and /usr/bin is the same after UsrMove
> >
> > What does not matter? That which ld comes up with /bin/ld ?
>
> clearly yes
>
> /bin is a symlink to /usr/bin
> /sbin is a symlink to /usr/sbin
>
> both are the same files

Well with the PATH modified so ld comes up as /usr/bin/ld and mtab 
existing in /etc
I am still faced with the original problem. grub2-mkconfig still 
generates grub.cfg with syntax errors and grubby
complains it can't find a template.

Should I file another bug...or just boot into 17 all the time ?

[Frank McCormick]

On 03/03/2013 07:26 PM, Frank McCormick wrote:
> On 03/03/2013 12:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > Am 03.03.2013 18:18, schrieb Frank McCormick:
> > > > > this does not matter
> > > > > /bin and /usr/bin is the same after UsrMove
> > >
> > > What does not matter? That which ld comes up with /bin/ld ?
> >
> > clearly yes
> >
> > /bin is a symlink to /usr/bin
> > /sbin is a symlink to /usr/sbin
> >
> > both are the same files
>
> Well with the PATH modified so ld comes up as /usr/bin/ld and mtab 
> existing in /etc
> I am still faced with the original problem. grub2-mkconfig still 
> generates grub.cfg with syntax errors and grubby
> complains it can't find a template.
>
> Should I file another bug...or just boot into 17 all the time ?

Well I solved my problem I **think**....removed the grub2-efi 
package ( I don't need it)...and it all
started working again. Long term....we'll see.