Comments on: What changed in perl-Bootloader between 11.0 and 11.1 https://lizards.opensuse.org/2008/12/18/what-changed-in-perl-bootloader-between-110-and-111/ Blogs and Ramblings of the openSUSE Members Fri, 06 Mar 2020 17:50:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: josef reidinger https://lizards.opensuse.org/2008/12/18/what-changed-in-perl-bootloader-between-110-and-111/#comment-567 Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:51:43 +0000 http://lizards.opensuse.org/?p=323#comment-567 There are few reasons. First is that this check is more high-level, where I don’t know what bootloader I have (and this is problem, because for elilo also doesn’t exist /boot/grub). Checking if exist some kernel file is present is also not success, as during install there is nothing. What I must found is if user have separated boot, because that partition mask underlaid /boot. Checking fstab is for me the best way, because if you have separated boot which you want use, fstab is natural way to mark it and use only mount /mnt to attach it. And also installer create this entry (no if you don’t want automount you simple add noauto. Of course if you have more ideas how detect separated boot, which is not mounted, I welcome it.

]]> By: Rob https://lizards.opensuse.org/2008/12/18/what-changed-in-perl-bootloader-between-110-and-111/#comment-566 Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:21:26 +0000 http://lizards.opensuse.org/?p=323#comment-566 Very intersting Jozef, I commented in factory list on the XFS boot thread, about some historical things.

Something I don’t understand, is why you try to look in fstab(5) to see if /boot is mounted, when you could simply access a directly to see if it exists /boot/grub say. If it’s not there, then you know the kernel rpm update will fail. That’s only 1 simple system call to.

When I filed a bug on old 10.3 kernel update, it was the reporting back to user angle that seemed like it could be tricky, as presumably the magic would be contained within the rpm’s.

]]> By: josef reidinger https://lizards.opensuse.org/2008/12/18/what-changed-in-perl-bootloader-between-110-and-111/#comment-564 Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:07:29 +0000 http://lizards.opensuse.org/?p=323#comment-564 Those debates lead to better code and thats really important 😉

]]> By: Bernhard Walle https://lizards.opensuse.org/2008/12/18/what-changed-in-perl-bootloader-between-110-and-111/#comment-563 Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:02:08 +0000 http://lizards.opensuse.org/?p=323#comment-563 Also a big thank-you from me. Even if we had a heated debate about serial consoles and about “esoteric mount points in /boot” 😉 I really appreciate your and Jozefs work on the bootloader code! Especially the test suite and the improved documentation is clearly a step in the right direction in terms of maintainability of the code base.

]]> By: Andreas Jaeger https://lizards.opensuse.org/2008/12/18/what-changed-in-perl-bootloader-between-110-and-111/#comment-554 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:32:11 +0000 http://lizards.opensuse.org/?p=323#comment-554 You’ve made great progress with the bootloader – thanks for sharing this!

]]> By: Martin Vidner https://lizards.opensuse.org/2008/12/18/what-changed-in-perl-bootloader-between-110-and-111/#comment-553 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:41:19 +0000 http://lizards.opensuse.org/?p=323#comment-553 Wow! There is so much interesting detail in this post! You have actually restored my trust in the bootloader code.

]]>