Arch Linux and GRUB2

rent0n · 2010-03-28 13:06:40

Good afternoon,

I'm a bit confused about Arch Linux's policy about GRUB legacy / GRUB2 and I tought someone in the community could clarify that for me.
The latest ISO comes with GRUB legacy, that according to this is no longer developed. Both GRUB and GRUB2 pages on the ArchWiki are outdated.

Why isn't GRUB2 proposed as an update to GRUB legacy?
This is quite strange if you consider that Arch is *the* bleeding edge GNU/Linux distribution.

What are the plans of Arch's developers regarding GRUB? GRUB2 will be part of the next Arch ISO, instead of GRUB legacy?
There will be an automatic update for all users from GRUB legacy to GRUB2? Or should we make a manual upgrade?

Btw, I don't feel the need to use GRUB2 and I've heard that is much more difficult to set up. I only use GRUB to boot Arch, I don't have any other operative systems. I just would like to know what is going on since GRUB legacy is dead and "should" be replaced with GRUB2.

Thank you.

Cheers,

Nerd King · 2010-03-28 13:35:16

I suspect it's a question of choice. At present GRUB1 is quicker and more reliable on most hardware (see the Ubuntu forums for the amount of hassle GRUB2 has caused) and Arch users are probably savvy enough to switch to GRUB2 if they want to. GRUB1 works pretty well and does what it's meant to do, lets you choose which OS to start and then boots it.

raj7095 · 2010-03-28 14:17:52

Nerd King wrote:

I suspect it's a question of choice. At present GRUB1 is quicker and more reliable on most hardware (see the Ubuntu forums for the amount of hassle GRUB2 has caused) and Arch users are probably savvy enough to switch to GRUB2 if they want to. GRUB1 works pretty well and does what it's meant to do, lets you choose which OS to start and then boots it.

and grub 2 goes straight to the login manager, instead of showing all the startup output, which can be a problem especially for minimal distros like arch linux.

Pierre · 2010-03-28 14:24:45

That's not true; and how should a boot manager do that anyway? And btw: we cannot just replace grub with grub2. The config is not compatible and would require user intervention; otherwise the system wont boot. So at least for now it's best to let the user decide.

rent0n · 2010-03-28 14:24:57

Nerd King wrote:

I suspect it's a question of choice. At present GRUB1 is quicker and more reliable on most hardware (see the Ubuntu forums for the amount of hassle GRUB2 has caused) and Arch users are probably savvy enough to switch to GRUB2 if they want to. GRUB1 works pretty well and does what it's meant to do, lets you choose which OS to start and then boots it.

Yes I agree and, even If I never tried GRUB2, I probably prefer GRUB legacy because it's more KISS.
However, I'm not aware of any exceptions in Arch Linux's policy regarding the upgrade of packages.
When a package is upgraded upstream, it is upgraded in Arch Linux too. What's the difference with GRUB?

Misfit138 · 2010-03-28 14:49:46

What do you consider outdated on the GRUB wiki page?

rent0n · 2010-03-28 15:04:31

Misfit138 wrote:

What do you consider outdated on the GRUB wiki page?

Just this probably:

ArchWiki wrote:

Currently, GRUB is the de facto standard bootloader of Linux, and is expected to be superseded by GRUB2 in the near future. When this happens, "GRUB" will become "GRUB Legacy".

It should be mentioned that GRUB is now called legacy and that development has ceased, while GRUB2 is the current focus of development.

On the other hand on the GRUB2 page users are advised that GRUB2 is still under development and that installing GRUB1 is a safer choice:

ArchWiki wrote:

GRUB2 is still under development and therefore caution should be observed. Consider yourself warned! GRUB2 may not behave as expected, features may be missing, and functionality may change. Without any specific reason to use GRUB2, users should consider installing the more stable GRUB instead.

toad · 2010-03-28 15:15:45

So what is outdated about that? I don't get it. afaic it accurately states the position as it is at the mo.

Of course, feel free to change it. It is, after all, a wiki

Last edited by toad (2010-03-28 15:16:00)

rent0n · 2010-03-28 15:28:20

Oh well, my point was not the wiki actually, but Arch's policy about GRUB.
However, the situation in the wiki does not reflect the situation in the official GRUB pages.

Mustard · 2010-03-29 07:06:49

Just as an aside, I know I was a bit disappointed when I first installed Arch to find that it was using grub legacy. I had already learnt to wrestle with Grub 2 on my Ubuntu install, and had started to like it. It also complicated the Arch install process, as I wasn't sure how I was going to install Arch without overwriting my previously installed Grub 2 (from my initial Ubuntu installation, with Grub legacy.

In the end I skipped installing a boot loader as shown in the Arch installation guide, then I rebooted into Ubuntu, ran a grub update and it found the Arch installation.

Just from the perspective of someone who tends to run multiple distro's plus Windows, it adds an extra layer of complexity to install Arch with Grub legacy, in some instances.

fsckd · 2010-03-29 07:47:12

Mustard: How would Grub2 from Arch have made it any easier?

gazj · 2010-03-29 07:56:44

As a matter of interest is anyone still using LiLO? It's still in the repo's

Dieter@be · 2010-03-29 11:03:26

fyi in the releng team I'm the only one who still has some time to work on the iso's, and i know shit about grub vs grub2.
Aaron knows a bit (i think) about grub vs grub2 but I'm the only one who has time/interest in the installer.

so bringing this up on the arch-releng list with pro's and cons is definitely welcome. patches are also welcome (assuming aaron /other devs are in favor of grub2)
there has been _some_ discussion on the list already in the past.
one of the threads:
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/ … 00135.html

edit: it will also help if you say more explicitly which problems you exactly have. on the live media you should be able to use `pacman -Sy grub2` and install grub2 on the target system

Last edited by Dieter@be (2010-03-29 11:05:51)

Mustard · 2010-04-09 01:50:11

fsckd wrote:

Mustard: How would Grub2 from Arch have made it any easier?

I don't really know the specifics of how Grub and Grub2 operate.

My assumption, however, as a non-technical user is that they would be incompatible. My concern was that should I install Grub-legacy during the Arch install, it would have overwritten my MBR with grub-legacy and then caused issues with my other Ubuntu installs which are set up for Grub2. If I then repaired my Grub2 install for my Ubuntu installations, would that in turn bork my Arch setup? I didnt know, but I would have like to have known.

I have no idea whether this would be the case or not, but the doubt it generated left me dealing with a question I didnt know the answer to during installation and that was not covered in the installation guide.

I guess my point is that for a layman like myself it adds a level of complexity and uncertainty to installing Arch, which could be handled better.

tavianator · 2010-04-09 02:25:14

Well, the Arch installer has no idea that you have Ubuntu installed. You actually made the right decision; installing grub in the installer would have replaced grub2 with grub. The way you did it, you can continue to manage grub2 from Ubuntu. You could also install grub2 from Arch and then use Arch to manage it, but in Arch all configuration is done manually via editing /boot/grub/grub.cfg.

Meyithi · 2010-04-09 02:59:42

tpowa's Archboot img's will let you choose grub2 and you can set up uuid device names as well, saves all of the messing about. All you need to do is reinstall (which I do often anyway lol).

RichardH · 2010-04-10 20:44:55

Yes, the smoke is clearing. I installed Arch into an extra partition, and requested that grub be installed to the partition. I suppose it was but at the time I had not learned how to handle grub2 when it didn't pick up the newly installed Arch. (Note: must run # update-grub).

So I then reinstalled thinking to just let grub legacy have it's way, but then it didn't show any of the other partitions. Which also was suboptimal. Upshot: created some local problems but recovered and stayed with Debian testing/sid, still considering how to run Arch.

Grub 2 is actually more Arch-like than grub-legacy.
Lots of files to edit. Each with a specific purpose.

And now, think I'll try it again. Grub2 is much improved over a few months ago and there is a bit more documentation. Will probably stay with grub2 in Debian since it is working fine.
## Note to self: Remember to run "update-grub" as root!!

franzrogar · 2010-04-10 21:17:42

RichardH wrote:

Grub 2 is actually more Arch-like than grub-legacy.
Lots of files to edit. Each with a specific purpose.

I'm not sure. I installed Arch64 directly with GRUB2 and the only file I needed to tweak was /etc/default/grub.

I, later, added a theme to it and only needed to edit same file.

And now, I'm running plymouth-git, and only needed to edit same file.

Oh, and btw, with GRUB2, command is "not" update-grub, it's:

grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg

But, of course, unless you know "exactly and perfectly without any doub what you're doing", you can also modify /etc/grub.d/* files... but if you do, you're trying to break grub2 for sure...

some-guy94 · 2010-04-10 22:56:50

Afaik, grub2 is still considered in development and unstable. Arch usually tries to stay with the latest, stable version of the software.

RichardH · 2010-04-13 01:48:56

@franzrogar,

Must be a Debian thing. I thought update-grub called "grub-mkconfig".

Looking inside "update-grub" I find the following:
#!/bin/sh -e
exec grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg "$@"

So I guess like some-guy94 said, grub2 is a moving target.
Thanks for the tip. I'll have to remember to use the Arch way.

franzrogar · 2010-04-13 14:35:04

RichardH wrote:

@franzrogar,
Must be a Debian thing. I thought update-grub called "grub-mkconfig".
Looking inside "update-grub" I find the following:
#!/bin/sh -e
exec grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg "$@"
So I guess like some-guy94 said, grub2 is a moving target.
Thanks for the tip. I'll have to remember to use the Arch way.

Hum... I pointed that because (I'm sure it was my fault somewhere), first time I run "update-grub" its generated file was "à la" grub1 and when rebooting, entries where not colored as expected.

After some search in forums (wiki GRUB2 article was not yet modified), I found the grub-mkconfig info. I runned it and voilà: GRUB2 conf file perfect as it should be.

So... thank you for pointing it just calls same script :-) I'll remember that if I can't remember the "user-friendly" one ;-)

RichardH · 2010-04-16 01:35:23

Hi Franz,

I installed archlinux-2010.03-1-archboot.iso after writing to a pendrive w/ dd.
BTW, I thought I got grub2 to install but don't think so. None of the grub2 utils worked.

Tried several times to write arch-2009.08 to pendrive with no joy. Used unetbootin and dd. Strange.
Probably the cheap clone P4 I'm trying it on.

Installed fine. But was unable to install Grub2, then Grub1 only found Arch and not the other Grub2 partitions.

So, rebooted with sidux-2009-04xfce pendrive, mounted my squeeze/sid part, and reinstalled Grub2 to it and rebooted. Now update-grub found the Arch install and I can boot Arch and still keep the Debian running to get work done while learning the Arch way. Still got lots of reading and trying ahead.

More this weeked. I guess the Newbie area is the best place for these rambling notes.

Thanks for your tips. I'm going to wait until Arch offers Grub2 install [maybe on another box]. It is a nice improvement, but I had no complaints about Grub-Legacy, as they call it. I think it is more for distros that have to build a new distro fairly often, like Ubuntu, Mint, sidux, etal. Still have to learn more Arch.

[Note: Installed and building my arch. Got Xfce4 up and running Firefox, mc, etc. Still need lots of others for a complete install. So far, very interesting, impressive and informative.]

Saludos.

Last edited by RichardH (2010-04-20 03:28:26)

falconindy · 2010-04-16 02:51:14

RichardH wrote:

Grub 2 is actually more Arch-like than grub-legacy.
Lots of files to edit. Each with a specific purpose.

I see this differently. Plenty of config files yes, but all with the same purpose: to feed a black box which pops out a config that may or may not do what you described in the multitude of config files. Also, what gives? Why so many config files when....

$  wc -l < <(grep -vE "^#|^$" /boot/grub/menu.lst)
12

That's enough to list both my kernels with all the options I want and I have a color menu *ooOoOOOooOooooo*. I

As far as I know, Grub2 still will not find a BTRFS root without unsupported patches. So for me to use Grub2, I would just end up maintaining grub.cfg by hand anyways. I actually prefer having a separate /boot partition. At that point, why bother switching?

tl;dr: imo, grub-legacy is the proper KISS solution. It still works and does what it advertises with minimal fuss.

Last edited by falconindy (2010-04-16 02:54:18)

sand_man · 2010-04-17 03:15:26

I guess one could look at this as GRUB and GRUB2 being completely different entities with similar names. GRUB2 was completely rewritten.
So as was mentioned earlier in this thread, it comes down to the choice of the devs. Rather than just picking the newer one, pick the one that has been proven to work.

tpowa · 2010-04-19 11:08:59

RichardH wrote:

Hi Franz,
I installed archlinux-2010.03-1-archboot.iso after writing to a pendrive w/ dd.
BTW, I thought I got grub2 to install but don't think so. None of the grub2 utils worked.
Tried several times to write arch-2009.08 to pendrive with no joy. Used unetbootin and dd. Strange.
Probably the cheap clone P4 I'm trying it on.
Installed fine. But was unable to install Grub2, then Grub1 only found Arch and not the other Grub2 partitions.
So, rebooted with sidux-2009-04xfce pendrive, mounted my squeeze/sid part, and reinstalled Grub2 to it and rebooted. Now update-grub found the Arch install and I can boot Arch and still keep the Debian running to get work done while learning the Arch way. Still got lots of reading and trying ahead.
More this weeked. I guess the Newbie area is the best place for these rambling notes.
Thanks for your tips. I'm going to wait until Arch offers Grub2 install. It is a nice improvement, but I had no complaints about Grub-Legacy, as they call it. I think it is more for distros that have to build a new distro fairly often, like Ubuntu, Mint, sidux, etal. Still have to learn more Arch.
Saludos.

The archboot isos support grub2 only by setup script, because you need to install it to your environment first.
new 2010.04 also fixed the bootloader only installation, no need for package install or configuring in front, just enter install bootloader and all should work like a charm.
greetings
tpowa

Last edited by tpowa (2010-04-19 11:09:53)

Arch Linux

#1 2010-03-28 13:06:40

Arch Linux and GRUB2

#2 2010-03-28 13:35:16

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#3 2010-03-28 14:17:52

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#4 2010-03-28 14:24:45

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#5 2010-03-28 14:24:57

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#6 2010-03-28 14:49:46

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#7 2010-03-28 15:04:31

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#8 2010-03-28 15:15:45

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#9 2010-03-28 15:28:20

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#10 2010-03-29 07:06:49

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#11 2010-03-29 07:47:12

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#12 2010-03-29 07:56:44

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#13 2010-03-29 11:03:26

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#14 2010-04-09 01:50:11

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#15 2010-04-09 02:25:14

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#16 2010-04-09 02:59:42

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#17 2010-04-10 20:44:55

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#18 2010-04-10 21:17:42

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#19 2010-04-10 22:56:50

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#20 2010-04-13 01:48:56

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#21 2010-04-13 14:35:04

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#22 2010-04-16 01:35:23

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#23 2010-04-16 02:51:14

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#24 2010-04-17 03:15:26

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

#25 2010-04-19 11:08:59

Re: Arch Linux and GRUB2

Board footer