On 7/17/2014 2:27 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 7/17/2014 6:38 AM, Edward Diener wrote: >>> There is other discussion around the web on this issue for GRUB2 (which >>>> is where the issue lies). The core is that GRUB2 is quite a bit larger >>>> than GRUB 1, and thus it may or may not be safe to install to a >>>> partition. >> I am a programmer myself. Gee it must be really hard to determine >> whether enough space exists in a partition to install the GRUB2 >> bootloader <g>. >> > > the stage 1 and 1.5 bootloader aren't in the file system, they are > stored on the reserved first few sectors. its possible core.img in > grub2 is too large to store in the partition boot record space, I dunno > how big that is. > Programming is about calculations as well as logic. It cannot be impossible to calculate how big core.img is, how much space is in the partition in which grub2 is installed and either tell the end-user it can or cannot be done. Things like "it's bad to install grub2 into a partition" mean nothing in the computer programming world. The first rule of programming: the bit is on or it is off.