aikishugyo at gmail.com
Thu Feb 28 23:57:31 UTC 2008
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Karl Larsen <k5di at zianet.com> wrote:
> Richard Rudnick wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 15:53 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Richard Rudnick <rich at aphroneo.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 10:48 +0800, SYNass IT Ubuntu / Linux wrote:
> >>> > sda2/u = /BOOT Ubuntu, shareable with more Linux'es !?
> >>> I would suggest not using a separate boot partition. Grub can find
> >>> kernels in more than one place (that is, a boot directory under each
> >>> os's root). If you have a 64bit processor and would like to have both
> >>> 32bit and 64bit Ubuntu's installed you must do this, since the kernel's
> >>> for both have the same name.
> >> Hmm, are you then going to have the boot directory under the root
> >> directory in the root partition for the OS installation?
> > Exactly. Each os will have it's own /boot this way. I used to use
> > a /boot partition when I needed it at the front of the disk for lilo;
> > since I've switched to grub it's not necessary.
> The reason it is not needed is due to the newer BIOS which can look
> into a giant hard drive now. But yes lilo had a problem that Grub fixed.
> In general Grub is an improvement.
I forgot that I actually have that situation on my dual-boot
Debian/Ubuntu system, and thanks for pointing out that you have an
isseu when you want to use 32-bit and 64-bit kernels. Got it.
I do find though that when I install a new kernel in Debian, GRUB is
not updated, only when I install ad new kernel in Ubuntu.... so I am
always adding the new Debian kernels to the GRUB menu by hand in the
Ubuntu /boot/grub directory. So how do you make a neutral grub
directory with a menu.lst where kernels from all your different
More information about the ubuntu-users