On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 02:53:11PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
This is incorrect. The whole reason the stage1.5 portion is an fs
compatible reader is so that you can update the stage2 file and it
will pick the changes up without needing to be reinstalled. This is
also born out by the fact that on package update, there is no %post
action in the spec to reinstall the mbr and stage 1.5 files even
though the stage2 file likely just changed.
We never update the stage 2 file without reinstalling the mbr and stage
1.5. The output of rpm -qf grub may be instructive.
> I don't see where compatibility issues come into it. If
> you're using the code as you're meant to use the code then you'll
> always
> be safe. If you're not, it's not guaranteed to be safe.
Like I said, not true. The grub package is designed to be updateable
without requiring an mbr reinstall. What's more is I had a look at
the stage1.[hS] files in the grub shipped in FC-1 and RHEL-5, and just
like I said, they are indeed binary compatible. So even if the grub
user space application pulls its MBR from a statically linked copy of
the MBR, it will still work with pretty much any stage1.5 or stage2
you find in a guest.
The grub package (as provided in Fedora) is not designed for that. This
would be a much easier discussion to have if you stopped describing
things that are manifestly true as "not true". And while it is the case
that grub *is* binary compatible between every version we've ever
released, it is *not* guaranteed that that remains true, or even that
it's true between us and any distribution that may be installed in a
guest.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org