[blfs-support] GUID Partition Tables (GPT)
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Thu Mar 21 08:45:45 PDT 2013
Baho Utot wrote:
> Have a look at this
> 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.
> 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
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.
More information about the blfs-support