Other Help Topics :: How do I create a .dsl from source/binaries?

lucky13, notice it's a newer version, that's why it has to be installed again. It may add some functionality, correct bugs etc. over the older version, besides showing the pic.. Not sure, but try here:

Debian unstable grub changelog

Quote (mikshaw @ Mar. 05 2007,10:16)

The *suggestion* about upgrading grub concerned only the installation of the program files, which in itself is not enough to make a useable grub system. The user would still need to install the bootloader into the desired location.

Correct. And for those who've installed it to MBR, it would affect MBR. Not good unless they are experienced and/or knowledgeable enough to handle issues that could arise. This isn't a trivial area of a computer, and I fear those most inclined to have "pretty pictures" at every chance they get are the least able to "fix" a gimpy, totally (bleep!)ed-up MBR.

Quote

Now that I've thought again about it, it seems to me that grub is probably among the least appropriate apps for a mydsl extension. The existing extension itself is not a click-and-run package, but merely gives the user access to the grub program without the need to compile it himself. You still need to create a config for it, and that will need to be available somewhere before the system begins init (meaning before a mydsl extension can be installed). This means that the only way it will be truly useable (as far as I can tell) is if you are using it in a remaster, a boot disk, or a debian-style system.

That was my initial hunch when I first read curaga's post. Extensions generally are used for loading things once the system is already up; but GRUB gets the system up. It would work best on a remaster or on a HD install, but I don't think it's suitable as an extension for use with frugal installs, etc.

Quote

I agree with lucky13 that Grub should not be automatically installed as most mydsl extensions are. It probably also should not be installed over existing grub files, since this might cause the system to fail to boot if the user does not complete the manual installation of the bootloader and configuration.

This is the part that concerns me the most. It's one thing to set something up on one partition that won't affect your entire computer. If that (bleep!)s up or conflicts with anything, it should be a relatively easy "fix."

It's completely different if someone starts re-writing or overwriting MBRs. That can affect a whole hard drive, rendering every OS on it unusable. That's further complicated if the user or the person putting together such an extension or upgrade isn't absolutely on the ball about it. All of a sudden, you have a computer that won't boot from hard drive, and -- in the hands of the wrong person, like one whose enthusiasm totally overshadows his abilities -- it can go downhill very quickly from there.

I would discourage anyone from using something like that just to get a picture for a few seconds when turning on a computer.

Quote

I might be completely wrong on this last point, however.

No, you're completely right. On your imaginary set of scales, weigh the benefits of having a pretty picture for a few seconds when you boot against the risks of totally (bleep!)ing up your MBR. Risks totally outweigh benefits.

Quote (curaga @ Mar. 05 2007,11:45)

I've outlined my concerns previously in this thread. In a nutshell, I don't like the idea of rewriting things -- third-hand scripts -- to MBR. I especially don't like it in the hands of people who really don't know what they're doing, who like the idea of flashy stuff without realizing that they could render their entire hard drive unusable. There are just way too many bad things that can happen to outweigh the good.

As for your points...
1. Newer isn't necessarily better.
2. It's in Debian unstable. GRUB itself isn't a "mature" boot loader, it's still pre-1.0. The current version works well. I don't care if it's all jazzed up because (a) I see mine maybe once a month, if that; and (b) mine loads my default OS in a few seconds.
3. What functionality does it add over the existing DSL version?
4. How many of the patches in the current version are for bugs in versions between the DSL version and current? This is very important to know before just saying it patches some bugs. How many of those bugs affect the DSL version?
5. Are there any significant issues that need to be addressed with DSL's GRUB not working when properly configured that this more recent version addresses?

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, I just don't like the idea of people capriciously messing with things like MBRs unless they have very good reason to do it. This isn't like adding a buggy application or library that can be deleted/fixed easily, this could totally ruin someone's day.

I'm glad you like your boot screen; it's very nice. I'm just thinking down the road how many people will start posting to the DSL forums or, worse, in other distro forums, ragging about the problems they have with something they got from DSL and blaming DSL for all their woes. It won't matter to them that they did something risky (altering MBR), just that it messed up their hardware and their lives. I don't think the benefits are worth the risks.

For your points:
1: I agree
2: DSL is based on Knoppix which is based on Debian testing/unstable
3: I don't know, that's why I gave the link
4: see 3: and maybe check bugs in 0.91 from somewhere
5: see 4 and maybe ask someone from the DSL team

Quote

That's further complicated if the user or the person putting together such an extension or upgrade isn't absolutely on the ball about it.

Does that mean me ;) bet it does.. I know what I'm doing (about grub, not entirely sure about the extension), I upgraded grub on my hd-install the manual way, installed it to MBR and have the tools to fix it if it goes wrong..

Could you answer my two questions? (frugal-grub and stage1_5?)

Quote (curaga @ Mar. 06 2007,05:48)

2a. A lot of Debian-based distros have switched to unstable or testing because of the speed -- or lack thereof -- of Debian updates to their repositories. This is especially the case with respect to distros with frequent release schedules, such as Ubuntu (which now affects Mepis) and Knoppix. This move to other-than-stable wasn't to be "bleeding edge," but rather to fulfill the desire of most users to have regularly updated applications when the latest distro release is issued. (Which makes some sense if your distro is on a 6-12 month release cycle and the Debian pool is stagnant for a couple years or longer: your "upgrade" isn't an upgrade at all if it's 98% the same as the previous version. The point is moot with DSL and other distros that attempt to retain as much legacy support as possible.)

2b. Careful. DSL is based on Knoppix 3.4, not Knoppix current. DSL's updates have been based on issues related to utility, performance, bug fixes, and rewriting DSL-based apps in shared scripting languages. DSL is not Knoppix, and not everything that works in one will necessarily work with the other.

3, 4, 5. I'm not the one trying to convince others of a need for (a) an upgrade to DSL, or (b) an extension that would affect MBRs.

Quote

That's further complicated if the user or the person putting together such an extension or upgrade isn't absolutely on the ball about it.

It was meant generically and with a couple recent threads related to that issue very fresh in my mind. I don't know what your specific skill level is. I also don't know the specific skill levels of other users who might innocently or naively attempt to rewrite GRUB to MBR and render their hardware inoperable. That's the basis of my concern, and given the real risks -- problems that can occur with writing/rewriting MBRs-- I really would want to see a lot more reward than a few seconds of pretty graphics at boot.

I do know the general world population is probably highly unqualified to start fiddling around with a MBR. This is something that has to be considered when working on anything that will affect a MBR regardless of your own intentions or skills. In the hands of most people, and that includes less technical-savvy people who are inclined to things like style over function, this can be a very bad thing.

I'd have a lot less issue about this if Robert wants to update to a version of GRUB that allows this kind of thing. It won't affect me too much if he does or doesn't since I only upgrade and use the current version on USB installs (my traditional hard drive installs are DSL 2.4 or earlier).

I promise it's nothing personal against you. :-)

Quote

Could you answer my two questions? (frugal-grub and stage1_5?)

I'm not sure what your question was/is. If it's about compression, vmlinuz is compressed (hint: z). In a frugal install, you're putting the ISO on its own partition; GRUB loads the ISO off the hard drive the same as if it were on the live CD or USB. Clarify or rephrase your question so we can get on the same page.

Next Page...
original here.