Arch Linux

I was under the impression that --root-directory was used simply to look for the grub files in the system. If we ensure that $bootpart is mounted to $DESTDIR/boot then this isn't a problem, right?

If we ensure that $bootpart is mounted to $DESTDIR/boot what's the point of this block of code? (eg, we can remove it imho)
# look for a separately-mounted /boot partition
bootpart=$(mount | grep $DESTDIR/boot | cut -d' ' -f 1)
if [ "$bootpart" = "" ]; then
if [ "$PART_ROOT" = "" ]; then
DIALOG --inputbox "Enter the full path to your root device" 8 65 "/dev/sda3" 2>$ANSWER || return 1
bootpart=$(cat $ANSWER)
else
bootpart=$PART_ROOT
fi
fi
And what about this one?
DIALOG --defaultno --yesno "Do you have your system installed on software raid?\nAnswer 'YES' to install grub to another hard disk." 0 0
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
DIALOG --menu "Please select the boot partition device, this cannot be autodetected!\nPlease redo grub installation for all partitions you need it!" 14 55 7 $DEVS 2>$ANSWER || return 1
bootpart=$(cat $ANSWER)
fi


We don't do anything with $bootpart anymore, so all code to set and check it becomes unneeded.

Gerhard/Aaron, can't we remove the 2 code blocks mentioned above then?

I'm not sure - the first looks redundant (assuming our autodetection of these things has gotten better over time), but the second one (RAID related) looks iffy.

Look at it this way: both clode blocks are only used to set $bootpart.
But $bootpart is not used anywhere anymore since http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=installer.git;a=commitdiff;h=4565577dbd2182dd49612f1e0b68288f5573bf7b

Well then I vote for the removal :)

We should keep the possibility for raid users to install grub also on the other harddisks in the array (esp. for raid0/raid1 arrays).

Also we should recheck why the switch to grub-install was needed. I have done this change in 12/2008 (but with the same grub version as we use it now in core). With the old method (/sbin/grub instead of grub-install) i got reproducable boot errors on ext4 root/boot partitions. But grub-install is "only" a wrapper script for /sbin/grub. And after all i see no real difference on the parameters for /sbin/grub if we call it with grub-install. But grub-install work - /sbin/grub -foo- bar not.
grub-install writes a temp logfile which is removed after execution, this could be changed when edit the grub-install script.

So further we should check (when aif code is solid for grub): Do we still need with current software versions this way with grub-install (do we gain or loss features when using the wrapper script) or could/should we maybe switch back to /sbin/grub.

Gerhard, is there a bug report or something for that problem? And what exactly is the problem? I found http://www.nabble.com/Re:--arch-dev-public--grub-with-ext4-support-td21200975.html but it don't understand exactly..
Also i tried with AIF: ext4 / and ext2 /boot, and once with ext4 /boot and those work both fine (though I test in virtualbox, in the thread you seem to mention there is a difference between VM and real system?)

Dieter, the link you mentioned was testing with grub2, and so also my expierience that there is a difference between VMs and real hardware. This was all for grub2...

The problem with grub-0.97-15 was in 12/2008 (the date from the commit):
method /sbin/grub in installer code doesn't work. It gets installed but a ext4 / or /boot partition could not be bootet after finished installation in virtualbox.

But changing to /sbin/grub-install (the wrapper script, there is also another method install-grub <g>) solved it in 12/2008. Therefor the commit, and this code also make it's way to 2009.02. I have no plan why the wrapper methode works - and our old (using the grub shell directly) don't.
So i mean: If we writing the code piece for aif we should check: what methods for calling/installing grub works (or not) with our current versions of software (we have a new glibc for ex.). Maybe we don't have to stuck with grub-install...

And the raid part: Anyway which method of calling/installing the grub bootloader - it should be still possible to install the bootloader also on the other disks of an raid1 for example...

Yes I agree we should always present the user the option to install grub on whichever device he chooses. But just note that since the "fix/workaround/patch" of 12/2008, we do not use the variable $bootpart anymore. Hence the two codeblocks I mentioned above are useless in their current state. We do pass $ROOTDEV to /sbin/grub-install, which is set at line 1060 ( http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=installer.git;a=blob;f=setup;h=b18c17f02cbc74e9e6523462574217bafaf1726b;hb=80ca34643e1c3db5ac5bbc856590ae44b559a6a1#l1060 )

In fact, both $bootpart and $ROOTDEV seem to basically be the same (it's one of $DEVS, see line 1060 and 1082) Since we already ask at line 1060, is there any reason we ask the same question again at line 1082 ?

As long as we keep the question at line 1060, that covers any case (including raid), right?

And for the reason we switched to /sbin/grub-install: I can only say that with aif (which still uses the old method) I tried an ext4 /boot and an ext4 / with ext2 /boot, and both cases worked fine for me (in virtualbox!)
How exactly could you reproduce the errors? Could you consistently reproduce the errors on a virtual machine (vbox?) I want to know this, so my tests are not "in the dark" :)

Dieter

This part (grub installation) should be completely rewritten IMHO. I think the raid stuff is useless in the current version :-(

The error in old installer with "old methode" was: grub menu appears correctly but the ext4 system (neither /boot nor /) could not be booted. I don't remember the exact error, maybe it was something what we fixed later with ex. glibc. But in 12/2008 switching to grub-install works, so it was the solution for me that time. I agree to recheck "the old methode" again (you say it works for you), we have to look on what methode we benefit the most.

we have to find out how much of this is still an issue for the new release (eg @grub softraid menu)

I will close this report soon, cause we don't use arch-installer anymore and aif handle grub install now with interacting with grub directly instead grub-install.
Nevertheless is will then open a new report mainly for the softraid part (i am working on that).

Ok, we have these 2 reports for grub related things in aif now:
 FS#13945  (long term refactor)
 FS#15652  (for special raid(1) setup)
Closing this report.