Re: Sabayon 5.2_64 live disk installation.Brkn.Grub [Solved]

[PennyRoyal]

Whoa... totally overwhelmed at the Bug page. I will retry to get a bug report turned in.

Of note: I see you installed Grub at "/boot". I have always installed linux on " / " partition. Is this the same? How do you force the grub installation to a specific location? All I see as options are MBR or root partition...

Side note: Fitzcarraldo, I read your replies daily and have learned a lot from the sidelines. If you haven't been told lately... YOU are appreciated for sharing your wealth of knowledge and the vast amounts of time you dedicate to helping us get/keep our systems running smoothly. And as for your patience... Well there must be a special place in the afterlife for you...

PR

[onederer]

I created a bug report. Hope that they look into it. I wonder if this thing is also happening with the 32 bit version of Sabayon?

[PennyRoyal]

Thanks... I was having trouble figuring it out. I might give 32bit a try tonight. Right now I have an open partition..

If you are interested, I can explain how I configured my partitions/HDD and why.

Penny

[Fitzcarraldo]

@PennyRoyal:

Well, Grub is installed in the boot partition, but that will be the root (/) partition if you have not created a separate partition specifically for /boot. So, if you accept the default partitions that the SL Installer offers, Grub is in the root partition. If I recall correctly, the Installer doesn't offer the option of MBR or root; it offers the option of MBR or "first sector of boot partition" (at least that is what the Anaconda installer, on which the SL Installer is based, states). I should remember the precise words given that I installed SL yesterday, but can't. In my case I create a small separate partition for /boot, so that's where Grub (boot loader and Grub files) is actually installed.

On my main laptop my Linux partition configuration currently looks like this: /dev/sda3 primary partition has /boot on it (and that's where the Grub boot loader and Grub files go); /dev/sda4 is an Extended partition containing three logical partitions: /dev/sda5 is the swap partition; /dev/sda6 has root on it; /dev/sda7 has /home on it.

Most people don't bother having /boot in a separate partition, and the debate on whether or not to have /boot on a separate partition is perennial (a bit like the Emacs vs. Vi debate, I think; each has its fanatical followers). It did save my bacon on one occasion two or three years ago, but on some of the PCs on which I have installed SL I just go with the default option and don't bother creating a separate partition for /boot.

One of the Gentoo developers wrote a well-written blog piece on the use or not of a separate partition for /boot, which I sometimes refer back to: Why people insist on using /boot. It makes an interesting read.

And many thanks for your "side note", it made my day. I'll just take advantage to name a few other guys who are frequent helpers in the SL forums: wolfden* of course; micia; sjieke; DontPanic*, dunsurfin, TheVooDoo* and joost* (* indicates SL Development Team), with apologies to any other frequent helpers who I have forgotten.

[onederer]

I'll be interested in reading the results of the 32 bit installation. If it is successful, then someone wasn't watching the store, when the 64 bit left out the door. Tonight, I'll try installing the 64 bit, using the text installer. If the same results occur, what should I blame? The installer or GRUB? The final visible results is that GRUB is the problem giver. If the results with the 32 bit, is the same as the 64 bit, and a failure occurs with the text installer, then it's time to move on. I'll install PCLinuxOS, where problems are few. I just would have liked to get the feel of the latest version of Sabayon Linux.

Cheers!

[Fitzcarraldo]

^PCLinuxOS 2010 doesn't use Grub2, it still uses Grub1. The developers tend to be more conservative in order to try and make the installation more stable (I'm not criticising, BTW, as I have PCLinuxOS 2009 installed on an old laptop, and I had PCLinuxOS 2007 on a desktop used by my family until it died and was replaced by a new desktop running Windows Vista, to my family's delight ), whereas one of SL's objectives is to be on the so-called 'bleeding edge'.

However, if you are not already fed up completely by the time you've finished your experiment installing 32-bit SL 5.2, I would be curious to know the result of an attempt to install the 64-bit SL 5.2 using the EasyBCD method I mention earlier. It's freeware and worth a shot if you can spare the time. I'm just really curious to see if it would be able to get around the problem. If you do, don't forget that you need to download the Beta 2 version, as the Version 1.x.x only works with Grub1.

[onederer]

I've installed Sabayon Linux 5.2 in text mode. The final results: no change! I still get dumped into the Grub troubleshooting text mode. I've started to install PCLinuxOS. The current 64 bit Sabayon DVD is only good for live usage. Over here anyways, it turned my desktop machine into a useless brick. So I'm dumping it. I've spent enough time on it and gave it a good effort. It's time to move on. I'm anxious to read about the results with the 32 bit version. If is does the same thing, then there is a serious problem there.

[onederer]

^PCLinuxOS 2010 doesn't use Grub2, it still uses Grub1. The developers tend to be more conservative in order to try and make the installation more stable (I'm not criticising, BTW, as I have PCLinuxOS 2009 installed on an old laptop, and I had PCLinuxOS 2007 on a desktop used by my family until it died and was replaced by a new desktop running Windows Vista, to my family's delight ), whereas one of SL's objectives is to be on the so-called 'bleeding edge'.

However, if you are not already fed up completely by the time you've finished your experiment installing 32-bit SL 5.2, I would be curious to know the result of an attempt to install the 64-bit SL 5.2 using the EasyBCD method I mention earlier. It's freeware and worth a shot if you can spare the time. I'm just really curious to see if it would be able to get around the problem. If you do, don't forget that you need to download the Beta 2 version, as the Version 1.x.x only works with Grub1.

Grub1 or 2 what's the differnece? There is a big screw up here. And if it is Grub 1, SGD totally failed to cure the problem. As far as the BCD, if GRUB is cripple and broken and cannot even present a useful menu of available OS's, what good will BCD do? To tell the truth, I've reached my limit. It's time to move on, and use another OS.

Cheers!

[PennyRoyal]

Well I downloaded and installed SL 5.2 32bit last night. Installed Grub to SL installed partition (not MBR). Rebooted... Same problem as with 64 bit version. No Grub menu. Could this be an installer issue? Just for frustration relief... I grabbed my SL 5.1 64bit disc and it installed without issues. That should rule out my hardware being the problem. I guess I could just do 5.1 and let it update a gazillion files till I get to 5.2, but it just won't "feel" the same... 'cause I want the shiny new one like everyone else...

2nd Side Note: I sincerely didn't intend to slight anyone. Fitz is right... lxnay, wolfden, joost, dunsurfin, micia, sjieke, DontPanic, TheVooDoo, and all the other regular contributors... Thank you, thank you, thank you. You guys are fantastic. I read your comments and guidance every day. It's like coming to class for me. I think you all may forget the impact you have on the community. Every time one of you help out an individual, there are untold number of folks on the side reading, absorbing and learning from your wisdom. I was sick of W****XP and wanted to give Linux a try. I didn't know anyone using Linux. After about a month of searching and trying different distros, I found sabayon 3.4e. I've been hooked on SL since... and the Forum and the help and the patience of you guys have been the reason.

Thank you for a wonderful OS!

Penny

[onederer]

I finished installing PCLinuxOS. But again, Grub gave me problems. It doesn't seem to be able to correctly identify which drive contains Windows, and which one has Linux. I had to edit the menu so that Linux would come up. Don't know about Windows yet. This proves that there was nothing wrong with the machine. This points to Sabayon. Either the installer needs repair, or Grub, or both of them. Good luck to all of you.

Cheers!