[Bug 154763] Grub is inadequate without Lilo for backup
pri.rhl3 at iadonisi.to
Wed Apr 20 17:31:26 UTC 2005
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 10:52 -0600, Guy Fraser wrote:
Because I note a hint of willingness here, I'll respond again.
> 1) If I spend the time to test GRUB on FC4t2, and discover the
> same problems still exist, that I have seen before and can not
> resolve the issue using the wonderful info documentation, are
> you saying you would then consider LILO to be needed.
That is not the nature of testing. Though if it were up to me, I
personally would not rule out re-including lilo, you're leaving out a
few important steps, here.
If you discover the same problems still exist and you can't resolve
them with the documentation you need to:
a) Define what 'same problems' you are talking about. This may mean
chipset information, mobo info, drive types (IDE, PATA, SATA, SCSI),
drive arrangement (primary master, secondary slave, scsi id 0, etc.),
and other pertinent information (software raid info with config files).
You may not need to post this much detail to the list, but save it for
a possible, future bugzilla entry.
b) See if someone on the list can help. If the problem is solved with
someone's help from the list, then it's probably a documentation bug and
should be filed as such.
c) Monitor any bugs you file (the default in Red Hat's bugzilla is to send
you mail when it's updated) in particular for requests for more information
or a request to check out a particular update on your specific setup. An
all important goal here is assist developers in reproducing the problem
on their own hardware if at all possible.
And keep this feedback loop going, minus the 'grub sucks, lilo rules'
rants. We know where you stand on that...no need to muddy up the
bugzilla database with it.
The point is, if you're going to help test grub, at least make an
attempt to help developers fix it. If you instantly want Red Hat to
abandon the idea of eliminating lilo as soon as you find a reproducible
bug in grub, then that's not much help. Well, you can 'want' it, but
don't give up on helping to fix grub in the meantime.
> 2) One of the problems with the documentation may be that it
> requires pinfo. If the documentation was put in HTML format
> it would be *MUCH* easier to use. I have heard many people
> who find pinfo very difficult to use, and prefer to avoid
> info documentation all together. I don't care for it myself
> but can use it, when necessary.
Don't even get me going on info files. It's just...twisted.
> 3) What can you do about getting LILO reinstated if it can be
> demonstrated that it will work in situations where GRUB will
See above. I will only see the justification for that if I start
seeing specific bug numbers with specific controller model numbers and
specific drive arrangements and a clear description of the technical
problem. And even then, only if the problem can't be fixed in time
before, say the next test release? Remember, though, you don't need to
wait until then to test a fix, provided an updated boot.iso and
*stage*img files are put out with the new grub embeded. Or maybe only
the updated rpm in the rawhide is necessary -- I'm not sure how anaconda
works regarding that. Either way, test, test, test ... and include any
updates that show up in rawhide in that testing.
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
More information about the test