Does anyone know how to reinstall the grub2 bootloader once it's been removed from the mbr? I use window's fixmbr to remove it but I would like to reinstall it. The old grub used setup to reinstall.
"Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> writes:
> Does anyone know how to reinstall the grub2 bootloader once it's been > removed from the mbr? I use window's fixmbr to remove it but I would like to > reinstall it. The old grub used setup to reinstall.
> Does anyone know how to reinstall the grub2 bootloader once it's been
> removed from the mbr? I use window's fixmbr to remove it but I would like to
> reinstall it. The old grub used setup to reinstall.
> Bill
grub-customizer has a menu item to install in the MBR. Not sure if that's what you need or not.
Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Does anyone know how to reinstall the grub2 bootloader once it's been
> removed from the mbr? I use window's fixmbr to remove it but I would like to
> reinstall it. The old grub used setup to reinstall.
grub2-install --no-floppy /dev/sda
or
grub-install --no-floppy /dev/sda
depends on if your distributions make a difference between legacy grub and grub 2.
>> grub-customizer has a menu item to install in the MBR. Not sure if
>> that's what you need or not.
> Hum. Never heard of grub-customizer. If it puts a copy of grub back into
> the mbr that's what I'm looking for.
> Bill
Google it. It ain't perfect but it ain't bad either. If you need help getting it installed after you've researched it, I have some notes around here someplace.
On Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 06:44:52h +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
> depends on if your distributions make a difference between legacy grub
> and grub 2.
And under Debian it is also a good idea to run update-grub2 just to be
certain that the grub.cfg file is recreated with the correct values.
Having very recently done a grub re-install, I learnt that when grub
is invoked in the boot up process (and as specified in the grub.cfg
file) it needs access to /usr/share. So /usr/share has to be available
and also if on a separate file system, it needs the correct UUID in
grub.cfg, which is important to remember if one has been shuffling disks.
Did legacy grub require /usr/share? I think not. Another case of
creeping featurism adding complicating dependencies.
And on the subject of dependencies, especially stupid ones,
if you want to install mdadm on Debian/Mint/Ubuntu in order
to manage raid filesystems, it requires the installation of
an MTA, postfix by default. Just how crazy is that?
J G Miller writes:
> And on the subject of dependencies, especially stupid ones, if you
> want to install mdadm on Debian/Mint/Ubuntu in order to manage raid
> filesystems, it requires the installation of an MTA...
In Debian mdadm does not depend on "default-mta | mail-transport-agent".
It merely recommends it.
> ...postfix by default.
Last I knew Exim4 was still the default on Debian.
BTW Debian, Ubuntu, and Mint are three _different_ distributions.
-- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
J G Miller wrote:
> On Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 06:44:52h +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> depends on if your distributions make a difference between legacy grub
>> and grub 2.
> And under Debian it is also a good idea to run update-grub2 just to be
> certain that the grub.cfg file is recreated with the correct values.
In this case I wouldn't recommend it, as it's not sure the OP will have everything correctly mounted when running the command, which could make some files not accessible and make the install to fail.
> Having very recently done a grub re-install, I learnt that when grub
> is invoked in the boot up process (and as specified in the grub.cfg
> file) it needs access to /usr/share. So /usr/share has to be available
> and also if on a separate file system, it needs the correct UUID in
> grub.cfg, which is important to remember if one has been shuffling disks.
This is due a bad choice to install the theme wallpapers in
/usr/share/images/ but you can always modify the theme configuration to look at it in the /boot slice instead, but then you need to see that your /boot slice is big enough to hold the images too.
I think the grub2 project has been too influenced by Redhat who has decided it's time to assume that /usr will be accessible at boot time.
> Did legacy grub require /usr/share? I think not. Another case of
> creeping featurism adding complicating dependencies.
Unless you specified that the splash image was located on /usr/share/images, which you could specify.
> And on the subject of dependencies, especially stupid ones,
> if you want to install mdadm on Debian/Mint/Ubuntu in order
> to manage raid filesystems, it requires the installation of
> an MTA, postfix by default. Just how crazy is that?
I don't use debian based distributions, specially not *buntu.
If you want some dependency hell, take a look at glibc in RedHat based distributions, it depends on gd, which in it's turn depends on X Windows System (not the whole, but core parts).
It was a bit difficult when I was upgrading my RedHat 7.3 (the last good version of community RedHat) with a up to date glibc, kernel 2.6 and libgnome2 (that was even more hellish, took me quite a lot of time and help from one of the gnome2 developers to build things in the right order and many packages had to be rebuilt after another package had been installed, to get all the features needed).
I feel better with a distribution where I can choose which dependencies I want to have, there are a few Source Mage for those of you who like debian, Gentoo for the rest (LFS isn't a distribution, just an instruction how to build your own installation).
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:07:56 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> BTW Debian, Ubuntu, and Mint are three _different_ distributions.
Yes, my mistake, I should have written Mint/Ubuntu and not included Debian,
but I had assumed that since the Mint/Ubuntu packages were derived from
the Debian packages, the dependendcies were the same.
J G Miller writes:
> I had assumed that since the Mint/Ubuntu packages were derived from
> the Debian packages, the dependendcies were the same.
I don't know much about Mint but there are many substantial differences
between Debian and Unbuntu. Many packages in Ubuntu are not derived
from Debian packages and many that are have been drastically altered.
-- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
On Saturday, February 11th, 2012, at 08:38:14h -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> J G Miller writes:
>> I had assumed that since the Mint/Ubuntu packages were derived from the
>> Debian packages, the dependendcies were the same.
> I don't know much about Mint but there are many substantial differences
> between Debian and Unbuntu.
Linux Mint, up to version 12 or so, is Ubuntu plus a number of
theme customization packages, administration tools, and restricted
packages (codecs, firefox, flash etc).
With Ubuntu going to Unity and Wayland, there is an increasing
divergence on some of the desktop packages as Linux Mint has opted
for the Gnome 3 desktop with a number of custom Mint features.
There is also Linux Mint Debian Edition which is Debian unstable
plus a number of Mint administration and theme customization packages
plus the restricted packages.
> Many packages in Ubuntu are not derived from Debian packages and
> many that are have been drastically altered.
However Ubuntu has for most releases been mostly the development of a
snapshot of Debian testing (for LTS) or Debian sid.
