[blfs-support] GUID Partition Tables (GPT)

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Thu Mar 21 08:45:45 PDT 2013


Baho Utot wrote:

> Have a look at this
>
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/UEFI
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GPT
>
> It looks very complicated just to get win7 and linux to boot with UEFI
> and gpt and I am not sure that I can have a 32 bit linux and a 64 bit linux.

I have a single XP instance on an old machine just for rare applications 
that may need it.  It runs in vmware, but if I wanted to create a new 
instance I'd use gemu.

> I think I will just stay with MBR and LVM,  much simpler.

Perhaps so for existing systems.  If you want to use disks > 2T, you 
need GPT.  For any new, unformatted disk (including a new virtual 
virtual disk), I'll use gpt.

> I get the
> same thing and don't have to  go through all the trouble of setting all
> that schist up.  Install Win7 64 bit on sda1, install /boot on sda2,
> swap gets sda3 and sda4 gets / on LVM, 32 bit PAE kernel (so I can drink
> some wine) another LVM root with 64 bit linux then add grub2 and 3
> simple entries to grub.cfg and I am done.
>
> This works for me because I don't have any hard drives larger than 2TB.
> I would like to move to gpt partitions but I don't see the merit for all
> the trouble to configure it.  Things in the computer realm are not
> simple any more too much schist has moved into IT.  It was much simpler
> in 1996 and look at where most projects are now.  I don't call that
> progress, just change for the sake of change.

Simpler and less capable and more expensive.  IIRC the latest was about 
a 100MHz 386.

> Look at you folks trying to get a standard version of LFS scratch out...
> before you can finalize a release many more packages have changed.

Goes with the territory.

> Not
> to even consider get BLFS-7.3 version "finished". The question then
> becomeis why,  do the new packages actually fix something or just change
> things ( break things) and add  several more pounds of dependencies for
> little or no benefit?

A little of both.  There are people paid to develop open source (e.g. 
Redhad, SuSE) and they need to be kept busy.  I agree that many changes 
are not for the good of the users, but some changes are needed.  For 
example, systems need to change to take advantage of >2T drives, touch 
screens, etc.

I think debian is on to something.

I used my earlier LFS system from 2005 to 2012 without updating.

> There is no way I can finish my desktop system....I am now just getting
> LFS-7.3 finished and when I get to BLFS there are more packages in LFS
> will have changed.  I thing is... is it actually good or just change by
> a bunch of younger developers who don't even try to understand how Unix
> came to be?

Just use what you have and only update packages as needed.  You don't 
need every package in BLFS.  I rarely build Gnome and then only for 
testing packages to put in the book.  About the only thing that really 
pushes a new system is a new major version of glibc.  Virtually 
everything else can be upgraded in place.  Some users have done glibc in 
place too, but I've not tried that.

   -- Bruce




More information about the blfs-support mailing list