grub / grub2 conflicts

Jef Spaleta jspaleta at
Mon Sep 19 19:15:17 UTC 2011

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Doug Ledford <dledford at> wrote:

> 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.
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?

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?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the devel mailing list