Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 12.10 Tries For Last Minute GRUB 2.00

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ubuntu 12.10 Tries For Last Minute GRUB 2.00

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 12.10 Tries For Last Minute GRUB 2.00

    Developers working on Ubuntu 12.10 are now past feature-freeze and the beta has already shipped, but they are hoping to pull in the official release of the GRUB 2.00 boot-loader prior to the October debut of the Quantal Quetzal...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE4MjA

  • #2
    Grub 2.00 is much better than 1.99 - i really miss that it is not even in Debian experimental. Very interesting however that it would appear in Ubuntu first...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Kano View Post
      Grub 2.00 is much better than 1.99 - i really miss that it is not even in Debian experimental. Very interesting however that it would appear in Ubuntu first...
      Didn't they have trouble with the license and Secure Boot or something like that??

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Kano View Post
        Grub 2.00 is much better than 1.99 - i really miss that it is not even in Debian experimental. Very interesting however that it would appear in Ubuntu first...
        It's in Debian Sid. But ya it is better and I'm surprised Ubuntu didn't adopt it years ago.

        Comment


        • #5
          You dream too much.

          http://packages.debian.org/search?ke...ll&section=all

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
            It's in Debian Sid. But ya it is better and I'm surprised Ubuntu didn't adopt it years ago.
            Grub2 != GRUB2 2.0

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Kano View Post
              None of those is a 2.00 build. They're all various 1.99s.

              This does seem pretty late, for Ubuntu. They're carrying a ton of patches against 1.99 which don't apply easily against 2.00. It'll be interesting to see if they can get that all sorted out in time without losing any functionality.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                None of those is a 2.00 build. They're all various 1.99s.
                He was pointing that out to schmidtbag.

                Comment


                • #9
                  So this will fix the large disks issue, but the hot issue of the day is secure boot. The boot loader will still be playing catch up for a while

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kano View Post
                    Grub 2.00 is much better than 1.99 - i really miss that it is not even in Debian experimental. Very interesting however that it would appear in Ubuntu first...
                    Common for Ubuntu is usually to backport software versions to work with older dependencies... I used grub2 for over a year without problems so far on other distributions.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      When you look at

                      http://packages.debian.org/changelog...22.1/changelog

                      you will notice that cjwatson is also maintaining the debian patches, i am sure it is not that big deal for him to update some things which are not yet upstream. When i tried to update the package on my own i failed because of the grub-extras from the debian dir - disabling patches is not the problem basically. For some of my systems i used plain grub bzr - 2.00 is already too old, has got problems with some special cases. A simple package which is easyly updateable to bzr would be nice to have (look into mplayer(2) debian dir as example) - dmraid support might not be optimal, but mdadm (even for intel raid) seems to work nicely even with gpt/efi. The debian grub did not detect that device - for efi you usually mount the efi partition to /boot/efi and just call grub-install with grub in efi mode. dmraid does not work with gpt anyway, so you can forget it. it needs partprobe to show gpt partitions - by default it only works with mbr partitions.

                      When you compare 1.99 to 2.00 in user perspective you find those things:

                      * the default behaviour changed a bit, usually only 1 kernel is shown and every entry which is added by os-prober - not really needed but does not hurt.
                      * you can use a new default theme, looks pretty nice if you like the milkyway
                      * the scripting language it much improved as it is now possible to check if grub is running in efi mode via an environment var and some other extra features - this example lists all windows uefi installs (use as /boot/grub/custom.cfg) only if booted via efi:
                      Code:
                      if [ "$grub_platform" == "efi" ]; then
                       insmod regexp
                       for bootmgfw in (*)/EFI/Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi; do 
                        if [ -e "$bootmgfw" ]; then
                         regexp --set=device '(\(.*\))' "$bootmgfw"
                         menuentry "Boot Windows UEFI from device $device" "$device" "$bootmgfw" {
                          root="$2"
                          chainloader "$3" 
                         }
                        fi
                       done
                      fi
                      I really think it is needed to update the grub2 package not only for Ubuntu but for Debian as well.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Why do I have the feeling that no one ever explained the meaning of "beta phase" to the Ubuntu developers?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well i think they could have switched earlier, grub 2.00 was released end of june. And since then i wait for Debian packages

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            kano: well the potential problem is that grub 2.00 is pretty substantially diverged from 1.99 in code terms; re-diffing all those patches for 2.00 won't be trivial. I think it's a good thing for Ubuntu and Debian to go to 2.00, don't get me wrong, they need to get out of this trap they're in where they have a bunch of downstream patches which they can't upstream because they're against an old codebase, and which stop them updating to 2.00. (It'll be a good benefit to the whole ecosystem if they can get all their patches upstreamed cleanly - some of them look like useful things to have upstream, but no distro using 2.00 can really use them without doing all the re-diffing...). I just hope they have enough time before 12.10 to get it done properly.

                            We (Fedora) had some heartache with the new nested menu format in 2.00 for F17, because it messed with our grub config update scripts. If Ubuntu uses grub-mkconfig, though, they shouldn't have that problem at least. There's probably others though.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Why doesn't Fedora use grub-mkconfig? You can simply tune the scripts installed into /etc/grub.d to match your needs. Btw. is gummiboot officially supported? The script that creates the loader entries seems to expect that /boot is mounted to the EFI partition (Debian/Ubuntu usually expects that /boot/efi is mounted there when grub-efi is used).
                              Last edited by Kano; 09-13-2012, 07:27 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X