Difference between revisions of "User talk:Gen2ly"
(Added "by the way")
(Response to editing mount fs names, agreed.)
|Line 57:||Line 57:|
:: [[User:Profjim|Profjim]] 09:32, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
:: [[User:Profjim|Profjim]] 09:32, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
Revision as of 04:00, 9 April 2010
I started out pulling together info from several Arch and Gentoo wiki pages for a comprehensive Change Root guide at SuperUser. Then I wanted to import this more detailed info back into the Arch wiki, and streamline some of the duplicate content (chroot instructions were/are scattered around at several places).
Reinstalling GRUB seemed ripest for deletion, but one of the arguments voiced against deleting it was that the GRUB page didn't itself contain the instructions for chrooting (even in bare-bones form). My hope was that the info from Reinstalling GRUB could be incorporated into GRUB and Change Root and then the original page could be deleted. Thus getting some overall streamlining. My own inclination, as I think yours, would be to have the chroot instructions only on one page. But not having even the bare-bones steps for chrooting listed with the instructions for reinstalling grub was an argument for keeping Reinstalling GRUB, then I thought OK, let's put the bare-bones steps onto the GRUB page. And distribute the remaining info from Reinstalling GRUB to the other two pages...
Profjim 20:13, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
- Sounds great. First want to say thank you very much for the polite response and the coordination efforts.
- I see where you are coming from (or think I do :)) about the casual mention of Change Root in GRUB and how it wasn't that descriptive. Particularly, it had no mention of fixing a broken GRUB installation... hmm. Pointone and I put that page together a couple months ago, but no work is ever complete :D . I originally created Change Root as a separate article because GRUB was beginning to become a beast (in size and measure) and since changing root is a common tool for various fixes, I was hoping to get by with just a mention. The main push for this is I'd like to attempt to keep articles about a specific topic and present them in as plain and as simple way as possible. GRUB being such an important topic (with many details) I'd like to try and prevent as much expansion on. However, the mention of Change Root on belonging to RAID configurations was an problem because this section specifically was meant to replace the Reinstalling GRUB article... whoops... Ok, I just grazed the section and updated GRUBs' bootloader installation mention of Change Root to include additional instances where Changing Root will be helpful (forgotten GRUB installation, and a broken GRUB installation). Do you think this will suffice? Possibly we missed something. Please be free to edit it as you see fit, but (if possible) if we could keep topics in separate namespaces, I believe it will be more useful.
- I tried to consolidate both your edits and the original article for the Change Root article. My thought when creating it was to keep it general so users that come across it from different angles will be able to bend it for their own use. I've Template:Codelineed many times and when I wrote that, I thought I covered all the bases, it's nice to get a fresh eye from a completely different direction - it definitely increases the scope and touch of the article. As far as details go on that page, the only thing I didn't include back in was the network configuration (I think) (i.e. Template:Codeline). At the time I was thinking it was outside the scope of the article but know thinking about it... hmm. Perhaps a separate section on how to connect to the internet???
- My hope was that the info from Reinstalling GRUB could be incorporated into GRUB and Change Root and then the original page could be deleted.
- Agreed. Funny, I thought we had already gotten rid of it :D. Ack. Ok, I just quickly scanned over the article and I don't see anything there that needs to be kept. Like to hear if you think we can clobber it yet, and I'll get it out of the way.
- --Gen2ly 20:59, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
- I hope no one minds if I chip in... ;)
- One of the reasons I favor the deletion of Reinstalling GRUB (again) and highly relevant to the discussion at hand: chroot is not necessary when installing GRUB! You can run Template:Codeline from any other Linux distribution or live medium and install their version of GRUB regardless, so long as Template:Filename exists and is accessible (and their version of GRUB is recent enough). Occasions when chroot is necessary are those where the partition is not otherwise accessible (e.g. RAID configurations) or if you use the flaky Template:Codeline method. This is why chroot only received passing mention in the GRUB article.
- That said, I certainly feel like GRUB#Bootloader installation could still use some improvement, but I am not quite sure where to begin.
- -- pointone 22:27, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
- Oh, of course :P been up to late I guess. You specify the root partition and grub can find it's files (e.g. Template:Codeline), yeah chrooting isn't necessary at all. Perhaps it would be better to put a note there instead since this is still a common philosophy.
- From this:
- Installing the GRUB bootloader may need to be done from within a Template:Codelineed environment (i.e. from installed environment via a separate medium) for cases like RAID configurations or if you forgot/broke your GRUB installation. You will need to Change Root from a LiveCD or another Linux installation to do so.
- To this:
- Installing the GRUB bootloader may need to be done from within a Template:Codelineed environment (e.g. for a RAID configuraion). It does not need to be done when re-installing GRUB or for a fresh install of GRUB, this can be done as root from a separate Linux environment. If you need to change root, take a look at this article.
Re recent round of edits on Change Root:
This looks pretty good now. I see nothing more to tinker with. I'll just leave an observation, about the choice between "mount -t sysfs sys /mntpoint/sys" and "mount -t sysfs none /mntpoint/sys". From the little info I've been able to find on this (I think I inferred this from the "mount" manpage), the only thing that the first argument ("sys" or "none") does when the filetype is proc (and I presume, sysfs and tmpfs too) is supply a name that gets used in error messages. The manpage suggests *not* using "none" because then the error messages may be confusing (e.g., umount may report "none busy"). But as I said (in an explanatory note you deleted, which is fine), this doesn't matter very much.
Profjim 08:53, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
- Profjim, I'm not sure if you saw the note I added when I edited that section so I'll re-detail it here. My knowledge of 'Changing root' comes from my previous experience with Gentoo. Since it is being used so extensively there, I trust their documentation on how to do this. Gentoo has always been very very good at dealing with low-level details so perhaps there is a reason to not specify these mount points. As for deleting your explanation, I am sorry, my reason being: I feel that we are the commanders and because of our knowledge we should be giving directions on good ways of doing things. The explanation could be put in again and if you feel it is warranted, please put it in though it is necessary for me to say that it does not seem 'keeping it simple' to me. Please, do what you feel best. I can support your decision even though I may not agree with it.
- Best regards,
- --Gen2ly 18:13, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
- I only said it to fend off confusion for any users (like me) who see the different recipes in different places and wonder why. For example, the mkarchroot script in devtools uses the "-t sysfs sys" form rather than "-t sysfs none". Perhaps other pages on the wiki also use different forms. But as I said, in the end, I think the only difference it makes is to error messages.
- On balance, though, I agree it's more suited to discussion between wiki editors than to be wiki content. We should just give one recipe and leave it at that.
- EDIT: By the way, your note about Gentoo was in the Summary line for the edit you did (was I supposed to see it anyplace else?) but it was too long and was cut off.
- Profjim 09:32, 8 April 2010 (EDT)
- Yeah, go ahead and change it. I like the idea of naming these mounts but was unsure if it would cause any problems. Prefer not the explanation and like your thought of 'one recipe'. 'mount -t proc procfs proc/' or whatever ... sounds good to me. About the Summary line... yeah, thought I wrote more than that... odd. Hope my previous reasoning above helped to sort that out.
- --Gen2ly 00:00, 9 April 2010 (EDT)