Re: [RFC] Allow separate boot block and core.img location?

[Chris Murphy]

On Jan 17, 2014, at 5:01 AM, joe faith <address@hidden> wrote:

>  
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Chris Murphy
>> Sent: 01/16/14 11:55 PM
>> To: The development of GNU GRUB
>> Subject: Re: [RFC] Allow separate boot block and core.img location?
>>  
>> I must be having a problem counting:
>>  
>> 1. GRUB
>> 2. unencrypted "boot" for Windows/Truecrypt
>> 3. Truecrypt encrypted "primary" for Windows
>> 4. extended
>>  
>>  
>> Chris Murphy
>  
> Everyone else may not necessaily have the same requirements as you.

No I'm suggesting fairness, that GRUB get its own partition for those layouts 
that can support it. 


> Some of us might want to have a separate partition for data or even 
> additional OSs.

Nothing I said is incompatible with partition lunacy.

> Also, I think I mentioned earlier that TrueCrypt FDE doesn't allow 
> extended/logical partitions (with XP).
>  
> How about:
> 1. Unencrypted boot
> 2. Windows XP (truecrypt)
> 3. Windows 7 (truecrypt)
> 4. Linux root

Adding Windows 7 is changing the goal posts. The context was one linux and one 
Windows with TrueCrypt. So please explain how GRUB can't or shouldn't have its 
own partition. And also if you can, clarify that TrueCrypt really writes 
important metadata to the unallocated space in the MBR gap - because that seems 
like a really ill conceived design.

Also, linux root does not require a primary partition. If you're using GRUB it 
can even find /boot on something exotic like an XFS formatted LVM2 LV.


Chris Murphy