Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Updated ISO

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: John T Copeland <johnc AT neto.com>
  • To: Adam Clark <adamsgl AT dhbit.ca>
  • Cc: wyatt AT draggoo.com, sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Updated ISO
  • Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:07:04 -0600

Thanks Adam.
I have read all the info I can find on lilo(did a google search and read the man pages), and my attempts to boot more than one Linux partition with lilo installed in the MBR all fail. The doc implies that if you supply a root=/dev/blah(or root=/devices/discs/disc0/partx)for an image block, it overides any global root=. When I attempt this and run /sbin/lilo I get: unable to find kernel 2.4.20, for example. If I copy the said kernel into the /boot directory of the default boot partition, everything then works(boots) OK. Therefore if I had on my system, a partition which had in it only kernels, and mounted said partion on all root directories at /boot, then this works just fine.

I don't know if this is the way lilo is designed, or if it is a bug which ignores the specification of the root= parameter on an image block as far as the kernel is concerned.

Anybody got any idea about this.
Adam Clark wrote:

True, and if one is doing a many-boot system, I would think they should get
*really* familiar with a bootloader. lilo has no problem booting a kernel
image on pretty much any partition. One does not need a /boot *partition*
at all.

As far as I can tell, your problems with Lilo are due strictly to not being
familiar with it. There's lots of LILO How-To's & other documentation
available online.

On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 20:30:31 -0600
John T Copeland <johnc AT neto.com> wrote:


I don't agree with placing lilo in the MBR. I never do. I have a primary booter, BootMagic from Power Quest in the MBR. lilo has problems booting multiple Linux partitions(it seems to want all the kernels in one partition, /boot, and the first one it sees. maybe a bug). Also, boot PC-DOS, Win2K, and even RedHat.

If one only uses Linux, and only one partition of Linux, lilo in the MBR is AOK.

Whatever we do, we should do a very good job of explaining what is going on with lilo and booting during the install. This is a very confusing issue with many people, especially newbies. If one understands lilo, linux, etc and is experienced, lilo presents no problems.

JohnC

Adam Clark wrote:


Hey Wyatt,

I agree with you on the point that I never put LILO outside of the MBR
either. Maybe we should take a poll somewhere, as I'd personally like to
change it to disc too.

Regarding jfs - before we even consider the alterations that would need
to be done, why the jfs kick from 'ya all of a sudden? We already have
several journalling FS options built in, with the supporting software. Personally, I would consider getting Raid support going during install a
higher priority than adding in jfs, and even that is fairly low on the
list, as I'd like to get a 'net install going very soon. I think a lot
of benefits can come by the work needed to get an okay net install done.

But anyhow, let me know your thoughts... I like having pretty good
reasons behind feature bloat. =)


On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:05:52 -0800 (PST)
"Wyatt Draggoo" <wyatt AT draggoo.com> wrote:




Out of curiosity, is this option even necessary? Ie, if, after doing
the kernel install, you go and edit lilo.conf (which the menu option
presents you with) and you put in the appropriate 'disc' instead of
'part', doesn't that re-do the MBR properly? If it does, is this
something that should be made clearer in the install guide?

If not, why not?

Obviously, I'd like to try and curb this kind of problem.


Maybe we should find out if we should switch the default to disc instead
of part. I have *never* put LILO on anything but the MBR, and have to
change it during the install every time. If the majority of the folks
installing SMGL are the same, we could change the default lilo.conf, and
add a notice saying we did so to the installer.

Speaking of installer, Adam, do you have any plans for 2.4.20-based ISO?

I'd really like to be able to install on JFS, and could patch the

current>install system to give that option, but I would need the 2.4.20
kernel>with jfs support, and the jfsutils on the ISO...

Wyatt

--
Wyatt Draggoo
_______________________________________________
SM-Discuss mailing list
SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss





_______________________________________________
SM-Discuss mailing list
SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss










Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page