Grub 2

[JohnnyLinux]

Is Fedora 13 going to use Grub2?

I could not find it in the feature list. :(

[Demz]

have another look timmy :) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Grub2 its 50/50 at the moment whether it'll be Default

you can install 1.97.1 in F12 atm

[JohnnyLinux]

Thanks.
I hope it does not go into F13...

[Demz]

well timmy, you gotta look at the pro's an cons for both Grub legacy an Grub2. i would think Grub2 has more support in it than Grub Legacy does. an Grub now the .97 release was always considered an Alpha/Beta of what should have been grub1 there are Grub2 threads on this forum perhaps you might wanna search for them an do a lot of reading on Grub2

[JohnnyLinux]

Thank Demz, it's just that I don't want to learn a new version... :p
JK. I will read them. thanks.

[Demz]

however i thnk Grub2 has LVM support built into it. whereas Grub Legacy doesnt

[Trapper]

Thank Demz, it's just that I don't want to learn a new version...

I've been using grub2 in ubuntu for a couple of releases now and configuration hacking is definitely different than 1 but once you get a correct vision of it and adjust to the syntax it's okay...sort of. I still prefer 1 but 2 is the future. The quicker one accepts that and dives in, the better off they are. No sense in holding yourself back from the inevitable.

Having said all that ... grub2 is a pita. :) I'm sure there's good reasoning for it but I am finding absolutely none in my personal environment. It just requires me to do more to get what I already had for years. I'm sure others must find some sort of benefit from it though.

[Dies]

...
It just requires me to do more to get what I already had for years.
...

If that's truly the case then you're doing something wrong. :p

No but seriously, if you find yourself needing to fiddle with it all the time then you shouldn't let the system manage it for you. If you manage the configuration yourself there is no difference from legacy grub aside from syntax. ;)

Personally, I love it already, can't wait till it's actually finished. :)

Benefits that I like the most at this point

Being able to completely forget about device names. Having a bootloader that's understands labels and uuid is awesome.

Being able to set graphics mode and font, this makes for a choppy shell at this point but who cares about the shell. :D

Understands jpeg and png, though I don't tend to use an image it's still nice that it doesn't have to be in some crummy format.

[Evil_Bert]

Can Grub2 accept a password hash yet? Last time I looked, the password was stored in plaintext.

[Demz]

they might be working on that in Grub2 1.98 as i noticed Debain using it

[Trapper]

If you manage the configuration yourself there is no difference from legacy grub aside from syntax. ;)

That's what I'm also saying. Added to that is the fact that you don't actually edit grub.cfg and have to work with a 40_custom file instead. And let's not forget that we have to run an "update-grub" after we make changes.

Once set up though you're good to go without touching anything. I set permissions on the 10,20 &30 files so they don't get written to and run out of the 40_custom only. I have an entry like the one below for each of my many flavors. It always picks up the latest and greatest kernel installed.

menuentry "Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid X86_64 Ext4 (on /dev/sda10)" {
set root=(hd0,10)
linux /vmlinuz root=/dev/sda10 ro quiet splash
initrd /initrd.img
}

As for graphics, etc., I'm with you on that. I could give a hoot. Others prefer eye candy, bells and whistles, I known.

Still ..... I find that manual configuration was easier with 1 and, as I said, for "here" grub2 is completely unnecessary.

[trumpet-205]

I hope they can resolve this bug before putting grub2 into FC13,

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/441941

Cause I do not want to have problem dual-boot Windows.

[scottro]

So, what are the improvements offered by grub2 aside from, of course, the opportunity to make fun of the folks who have trouble with it, complain, and then get called stupid newbies?

It'd be nice if they spent their efforts on things that ARE broken, and fix them, rather than break what has been working properly for years. <cough>pulseaudio</cough>

Yet another reason why 2010 won't be the year of the Linux desktop.

[Demz]

So, what are the improvements offered by grub2 aside from, of course, the opportunity to make fun of the folks who have trouble with it, complain, and then get called stupid newbies?

It'd be nice if they spent their efforts on things that ARE broken, and fix them, rather than break what has been working properly for years. <cough>pulseaudio</cough>

Yet another reason why 2010 won't be the year of the Linux desktop. when did Linux ever have the desktop?

but i dont think Grub2 will be used as default in FC13, not untill 1.98 has been released anyway which i know Debain is testing

[scottro]

when did Linux ever have the desktop?

It's just a joke, referring to the articles that come out all the time, Why <insert year here> will be the year of the Linux desktop.

There was a very amusing (to me) satire, Digg 20 years from now. The top article was
Why 2029 will be the year of the Linux desktop.

Unfortunately, LInux tends to shoot itself in the foot. I don't think MS (or Apple) has to worry until sound, video and wireless and all in one printers become a bit more consistent.

[Demz]

bad quote there :D

but yeah its getting better https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutomaticPrintDriverInstallation thats a step forward

[scottro]

Fixed the quoting. :)

It does look interesting. I see, however, that it's probably going to rely on packagekit, which I usually remove.

[Demz]

Fixed the quoting. :)

It does look interesting. I see, however, that it's probably going to rely on packagekit, which I usually remove.

i think you'll find more an more things will rely on PackageKit being installed . but your not forced to use it even though it maybe installed on ones computer. i think you'll find they'll Tie PackageKit into Gnome. maybe after F13 it might be good time to start using something else if you dont like PackageKit

[scottro]

Ah well. What else is new? :)

To go back on topic, I wonder if, once Fedora implements grub2 and upstart (I think upstart is already there), it's going to become a real pain in the neck to boot to runlevel 3, as it is in Ubuntu's desktop edition. (Real pain in the neck may be an exaggeration--at any rate, the trick seems to be, if using the default install, to go into /etc/init and edit gdm.conf, commenting out all the start lines. Took more googling than I felt it should have to find this, especially as it's behavior that was standard for years. It might even be the same nuisance with Debian, which I found surprising.)

At any rate Ubuntu doesn't have a runlevel 3 as Fedora does, levels 2-5 are all GUI.

To sum up....

I see little to be gained from grub2, save aggravation. The important thing in a boot loader is that it boots, and is easily edited when there's an issue. I see from one of the posts above that after editing, one has to run grub-update. Wasn't that one of the big, Wow, we're great, things about grub---that unlike Lilo, changes took effect immediately?

As my sig says

"I don't know why there is the constant push to break any semblance of compatibility"

[Evil_Bert]

I don't think Upstart affects the end result of "run-levels" much, so far, only the way it gets there. Of course, that maybe because Fedora developers have stuck to "SysV-like" scripts so far in implementing Upstart, so the approach doesn't look much different to the old "init process". Fedora has been using Upstart since F9.

You're right, Debian and Ubuntu "run-levels" are defined quite differently to Fedora/Red Hat - it took me a while to get used to that the first time. I defined my own custom run-levels in one Debian install (which, IIRC, is why Debian levels 2-5 look the same, i.e. for easy customisation ... and Debian doesn't yet use Upstart) ... yes, I was kinda bored at the time. ;)

I prefer traditional Red Hat run-levels, myself - easy to conceptualise - but since things like NetworkManager have changed the way the network is started, SingleUser mode is so rarely used if at all and a console login is still possible via Alt-F2, then I can see why there's no pressing need to keep them, Plus, apparently there are several advantages to dynamic, event-driven service management.

[scottro]

I just have an acquired dislike of tying essential system functions to the GUI. <insert dinosaur rant about why the heck do people want to boot into a GUI and those that do should go to Windows and Mac, both of which do it better.> :)

Grouchily yours,

[leigh123linux]

I hope they can resolve this bug before putting grub2 into FC13,

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/441941

Cause I do not want to have problem dual-boot Windows.


Personally I hope they can't resolve it in time to include it in the final F13 release. :cool:

[scottro]

/me applauds loudly.

Great minds run in similar channels--of course, so do sewers but.....

[RedFedora]

Ideally, grub2 won't make it into Fedora until it's actually as useful as the thing it's replacing. Too many Ubuntu installs went south with grub2 for me to feel comfortable using it. If Fedora 13 includes grub2, I'll use another distro.

[Demz]

GRUB 2 with Sora theme! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBCR0jVzMFs)

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1371288 more about this New look for Grub2

[scottro]

Well, prettier than Mac or WIndows booting.

I guess it's a different mind set these days--I just can't see caring about how quickly it boots, or how pretty it is when booting--if I'm watching a boot, it's to detect a problem. I'm really a lot more interested in what it does when it's done booting. :)

Victim of the generation gap.....

<hobbles away on his cane>

[Demz]

things you can do with Grub2 looks rather nice, much nicer than grub-legacy . but i would think even with the fancy GUI you'd be able to Press ESC or whatever to see what its doing if you didnt want the GUI.

[scottro]

Such as....

In this case, not to be confrontational, and of course, my thinking is limited to my own needs. For me, I need a boot loader to errm, boot. Also, to possibly boot other systems, though that becomes less and less important to me as time goes on. Grub legacy already does that, as does the GAG boot loader. So did Lilo, but I did feel grub was an improvement at the time, especially as one didn't have to rerun /sbin/lilo after configuration changes. Now, with grub2, that one advantage seems to be lost.

Will it do better at booting other systems? Again, though is there really a need for this?

How often do you boot your computer?

Looking at google, it seems it can boot more systems with newer BIOS, but that hasn't (yet) affected me either. Also, it can apparently boot Mac file systems and the older grub couldn't.

Again, for *MY* needs it seems as if it's just one more thing that will probably break existing setups, but I'm a pessimist.

[Demz]

i always shut down my computer , i always did even when i just had Linux on me PC, perhaps Grub2 will do a better Job at booting/Dualbooting/configuring Windows Vista partitions than Grub-legacy did. i dont know since i havent seen/read much about that. you'd have to go over to the Ubuntu forums an ask about that

[Evil_Bert]

Funnily enough, just yesterday in figuring out the range of OSes for my new system (which is multi-multi-boot), I concluded that Grub legacy did everything that I wanted and, what's more, Grub legacy has the killer feature I need that Grub2 doesn't yet have: an encrypted password capability.

So, it looks like Grub legacy for me for the foreseeable future.

[Demz]

i like the GUI of boots so i think Grub2 is in the right direction . ok some might not like it nut im sure there will be alternatives, thosse alternitives may not be the easiest or best ones

[sexyb3rry]

Personally I hope they can't resolve it in time to include it in the final F13 release. :cool:

Amen.

It looks like 'they' do want to, but I don't think they will release with F13 ; at least I hope they don't... (Goddard, such an ugly name; I was rooting for "Segovia")

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Grub2

[Demz]

i dont think the actual Feature list is actually finished so grub2 could still end up as Default by the time the beta gets released

[sexyb3rry]

(sighs)
LFS... here I come :(

[RahulSundaram]

Hi,

Nooone is driving that feature at this point so it is unlikely. If it is not in by the Alpha release as default, it won't make it. GRUB2 for those who want it is already in the repo however.

[Demz]

2010-02-09 Feature Freeze (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/FeatureFreezePolicy) Planning & Development Ends.

i guess if it aint in by that date one can say it wont be default?

[bob]

Quick question, Rahul. Any idea if grub2 in Fedora will recognize and correctly identify other linux distros? Grub2 in Ubuntu does a very good job, but then again, any Debian-based distro recognized them with standard grub.

[sexyb3rry]

Hi,

Nooone is driving that feature at this point so it is unlikely. If it is not in by the Alpha release as default, it won't make it. GRUB2 for those who want it is already in the repo however.

Thanks Rahul, good to hear :)

[RahulSundaram]

Quick question, Rahul. Any idea if grub2 in Fedora will recognize and correctly identify other linux distros? Grub2 in Ubuntu does a very good job, but then again, any Debian-based distro recognized them with standard grub.

This has nothing to do with GRUB itself. It is within the scope of the installer to handle it.

[bob]

Yeah, I figured that would be the case. Never understood why Debian-based distros can handle it and RPM-based distros ignore almost anything linux. But, that's another subject.

[RahulSundaram]

Hi,

Its pretty much the same subject. Debian and Debian derivatives like Ubuntu rely on the same installer or share the code while RPM based distributions have different installers. Some do implement but there is no standard interface to detect other distributions and the code is usually a bunch of ugly hacks that doesn't work properly in all circumstances.

[johnnymack]

I have lots of dual-boot boxen around. One I just added Kubuntu 9.10 to last week also runs openSUSE 11.3. The former has grub2 and the latter has grub1. There is a significant different in the syntax of the stanzas. the grub2 stuff looks like it is dynamic whereas the older stuff looks to be static. How-to merge grub1 stanzas into grub2's "grub.cfg" appears to require a learning curve. Either learn grub2 config syntax now, or put it off and hack Kubuntu to regress back to grub1 seem to be the only choices ATM.

[Piscium]

I started using Linux (Kubuntu) about 6 months ago, and I felt that it was better to learn Grub2 than Grub1, as Grub1 sooner or later would become obsolete. So I replaced Grub1 with Grub2 after install.

While I have no plans to use Grub1, my feeling is that Grub2 is not yet ready for general use. This is mainly because the grub configuration file is meant to be automatically generated, and this configurator is not as smart as one would desire.

For example, depending on the kernels and where they are located, the configurator might put 3 entries in the menu that say for example Fedora 12 on partition x, without showing the kernel version, so one runs the risk of using an older kernel.

Also the kernels are not always correctly ordered. For example, yesterday a new kernel came out for Fedora 12 (2.6.31.12). The other kernels on my PC are 2.6.31.9 and 2.6.31.6. So the configurator put on top of the list 2.6.31.9 followed by 2.6.31.6 and then 2.6.31.12. I guess the reason is because the 8th digit of the version string for the last version (1) is less than for the earlier versions. I fixed the issue by changing the variable GRUB_DEFAULT and recreating grub.cfg. Easy, but not suitable for my grandmother if she was alive!

To use Grub2 on Fedora I had to sort out os-prober. This package is needed by Grub2 but is not available in Fedora repo. My solution was to boot into Ubuntu, installing "alien" (which by the way is not available on Fedora either), then downloaded the os-prober deb file and converted it to rpm. After copying it to my Fedora partition I installed it and all is well. I am using Grub2 sources from the Grub website and built it myself.

[Demz]

After being in development for many years, GRUB 1.97 was released this past October as a major development release towards GRUB 2.0. (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzYzOQ) GRUB 2.0 brings forth many new features and has already been picked up by Ubuntu and other Linux distributions. The GRUB 1.97 release though was quickly outdone by a point release (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzY4NQ) to address some bugs and a security issue and since then it's been a quiet few months. Robert Millan though has made a Sunday afternoon release of GRUB 1.97.2.

The GRUB 1.97.2 release carries more fixes for this advanced boot loader (including fixes for a few 4GB limitations) and then clearing up some licensing problems with some BSD headers found in the earlier 1.97.x versions.

The GRUB 1.97.2 release announcement with download links can be found on the GNU mailing list. (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2010-01/msg00316.html) http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzkyMA

[Piscium]

Just built 1.97.2 (in F12) and installed it and it booted fine.

Someone mentioned that Grub2 is available in rawhide, however if I do:

yum --enablerepo=rawhide list grub*

... I don't see any grub in rawhide. Any ideas?

[Igby]

yum --enablerepo=rawhide list grub*

... I don't see any grub in rawhide. Any ideas?
Yes! :D Try
yum info grub2 --enablerepo=rawhide
Or with your yum option
yum list "grub*" --enablerepo=rawhide
Seems to be a problem with the wildcard. Please ask a person thats more qualified for informations. ;)

Igby

[Piscium]

Thanks, Igby.

Grub2 is in rawhide all right. I missed it due to a change I had made to yum.conf (my oversight).

[marko]

Thanks, Igby.

Grub2 is in rawhide all right. I missed it due to a change I had made to yum.conf (my oversight).

I see grub2 in Fedora 12 official's update repository:
yum -v info grub2
....
Available Packages
Name : grub2
Arch : x86_64
Epoch : 1
Version : 1.97.1
Release : 2.fc12
Size : 720 k
Repo : updates

does that mean it's stable and can be installed into Fedora 12 official?

[Demz]

wonder why they havent updated it to 1.97.2 both in rawhide an F12

[Piscium]

I see grub2 in Fedora 12 official's update repository:
yum -v info grub2
....
Available Packages
Name : grub2
Arch : x86_64
Epoch : 1
Version : 1.97.1
Release : 2.fc12
Size : 720 k
Repo : updates

does that mean it's stable and can be installed into Fedora 12 official?

It says nowhere in the Grub2 website that there is such a thing as a stable version, it is very much under development.

In any case, this is the blurb on the Fedora 12 grub2 package (with yum info):

"PLEASE NOTE: This is a development snapshot, and as such will not
replace grub if you install it, but will be merely added as another
kernel to your existing GRUB menu. Do not replace GRUB (grub package)
with it unless you know what are you doing. Refer to README.Fedora
file that is part of this package's documentation for more information."

Right now it takes me about 20 minutes to build and install a new Grub2 version (like 1.97.2 last week), however I spent many hours last year reading about Grub2 and making plans before I first installed it. It is very easy to put the PC in an unbootable state if one is not careful.

[Demz]

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=155882

Grub2 1.97.2 in Koji

[liangsuilong]

I tried to ask to update grub2 and replace grub with grub2 in the devel mail list. I got the reply that there is no need to do it. The reason is grub-legacy is useful enough and grub2 has a lot of bugs. So Fedora has no plan to set grub2 as bootloader. They do not think that maintaining two default bootloader or another new bootloader is needed.

I just hope RPM-based distros and DEB-based distros have an unified bootloader. Debian is using grub2 now and Fedora is using grub. I have dual-boot computer. My father is using Ubuntu for browsing website and word processing. I am using Fedora for building rpms and trying new features. Now I prefer to use grub rather than grub2. Configuring grub2 on Ubuntu is wasting a lot of time for dual-boot.

Notice: VGA parameters of kernel is still unavailable on grub2. So plymouth does not work if you are using proprietary display drivers.

[Dies]

...
Notice: VGA parameters of kernel is still unavailable on grub2. So plymouth does not work if you are using proprietary display drivers.

That's not true.

It's just different, vga parameters are obsolete since grub2 can pass the mode for you. Instead of using vga=0x31a or whatever, you would use something like

set gfxpayload=1280x1024x32

Of course you would want to set that to the highest mode supported by your card, if you don't know this just ask grub2 to display available modes using 'vbeinfo'.


HTH

[Demz]

i think you'll find Fedora will wait for 1.98 or 1.99 of Grub2 an then use it as Default. 1.97 was rather sloppy

[Demz]

i see Grub2 1.98 released, will post the changelog here once i can find it

---------- Post added at 11:53 AM CST ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 AM CST ----------

ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/grub/

---------- Post added at 11:54 AM CST ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 AM CST ----------

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2010-03/msg00017.html changelog might be found in here

---------- Post added at 12:02 PM CST ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM CST ----------

wonder if F14 will use this?

---------- Post added at 12:24 PM CST ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 PM CST ----------

anyone else remember that other Grub2 thread? cannot find it

---------- Post added at 01:36 PM CST ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 PM CST ----------

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=231862

---------- Post added at 01:45 PM CST ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM CST ----------

found it. http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=232875