[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FreeBSD Boot Details

From: Werner Scheinast
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Boot Details
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 18:25:19 +0200 (CEST)
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)

Am Freitag schrieb Jordan Uggla:


I'm not sure what you wanted to point me to. Okay, I should talk about
core.img rather than stage 1.5 in GRUB 2, but this does not influence my

> Blocklists pointing to blocks on an active filesystem are unreliable,
> and thus should not be used.

They just have to be administrated thoroughly, i.e. grub-install be called
after touching anything in /boot/grub.

> Most filesystems do not provide an
> embedding area for the bootloader and thus for most configurations the
> only reliable place to store a boot sector (if you use a boot sector
> at all, rather than having your preferred boot manager load grub's
> core.img reliably using multiboot), is in the MBR. Thus, grub's boot
> sector should always go in the MBR (unless you're installing grub to a
> partition containing a filesystem like btrfs, but even in that case I
> would recommend installing grub's boot sector to the mbr for
> simplicity).

I agree that installation in the MBR is generally the most simple and
failsafe method. But GRUB should offer the mere possibility to install
itself only locally and apply block lists if forced, i.e. in the absence
of an embedding area.
It seems that a local GRUB insists in block addressing for Linux (ext234)
and refuses it strictly for FreeBSD. The latter is the reason for my error
Is there no way to customize this? "Please use a block list here!" as
opposed to "please don't us a b.l. but assume a reserved space here!"

> What difference do you think there is between grub installed from/for
> *BSD and grub installed from/for GNU/Linux?

See above, about block addressing.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]