PDA

View Full Version : [ubuntu] 10.4 Install boot loader to dev/sda5 greyed out



silmarilwest
August 24th, 2010, 06:07 PM
In the past I have always hit the "advanced" button on the last page before install, and changed the install for the bootloader to dev/sda5 (or whatever the main ubuntu partition is). Then I use dd to copy the ubuntu bootsector & add an entry in the windows bootloader.
Well I just tried this with 10.4 (32-bit) and the option to install anywhere but dev/sda was greyed out (I could select dev/sda5 from the dropdown but the ok button became disabled).
Anyone else seen this, or have a workaround? To be clear, I don't want to have grub/grub2 installed on my mbr. I could probably do something with grub4dos, but I really would prefer the bootsector copy method if possible.
Thanks

wilee-nilee
August 24th, 2010, 06:18 PM
Windows wont read a ext4 partition anyway, you will be better off with grub2 or easybcd2, as the bootloader. Personally I wouldn't use easybcd being that grub is one of the best.

The funny thing about the mbr is it is easy to load, you have developed a feeling about grub being there that does not stand up to reason.

silmarilwest
August 26th, 2010, 08:43 PM
Windows wont read a ext4 partition anyway, you will be better off with grub2 or easybcd2, as the bootloader. Personally I wouldn't use easybcd being that grub is one of the best.

The funny thing about the mbr is it is easy to load, you have developed a feeling about grub being there that does not stand up to reason.
I'm not quite sure you understand completely. Windows doesn't need to read an ext4 partition. I just grab the 512 byte linux bootsector from a live cd once the ubuntu install is done, but I need to have grub installed to a partition other than sda1. This was always an option in the past but is greyed out now for some reason with 10.4.

No, I don't want to use grub as my primary bootloader. I tend to reformat the linux side more often, so it doesn't make sense to use a primary bootloder that stores all its info on a partition I may wipe in 3 months. If I need to I can chain load grub4dos, but it would be completely unnecessary if I could simply select dev/sda5 during the final page of the ubuntu installer. Anyone else run into this problem? I know I'm not the only one who installs the bootloader to a different partition.

oldfred
August 26th, 2010, 10:41 PM
So many people installed grub to the windows partition that they have changed to only allow installs to the root, boot or grub partitions and they still do not recommend installs to partitions as that has to use the unreliable blocklist or hard coded addressing to find the grub files.

I still do not understand the issue of reinstalling a boot loader if you do reconfigure your system. You still have to install grub somewhere and then you are going thru the dd process to make it work. Just installing grub2 or reverting to windows still seems easily. Another alternative is just to create a grub2 partition and use it for all boots.

silmarilwest
August 26th, 2010, 11:18 PM
So many people installed grub to the windows partition that they have changed to only allow installs to the root, boot or grub partitions.
Hmm, I was trying to install it to the boot partition (sda5).
If you want to install grub to your mbr that's fine, but I don't. I prefer as few writes as possible to this area of my hard drive.

arpanaut
August 27th, 2010, 12:38 AM
One option that might work is to install legacy-grub and use that.
I'm not sure of the steps needed to do that, but I'm sure it's doable.
You seem to know what you are doing with your set-up, so good luck.

Grub2 is an excellent bootloader and is the future, well worth the effort to learn
But it is your rig so... Linux is all about freedom.
Have at it.

Here ya go:http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1298932

silmarilwest
August 29th, 2010, 02:40 AM
Grub2 is an excellent bootloader and is the future, well worth the effort to learn
But it is your rig so... Linux is all about freedom.
Have at it.
I agree completely, grub2 is a great bootloader, just don't want to use it in this particular case. I also agree that Linux is about freedom which is why the removal of such a handy option strikes me as odd.

I suppose not using grub in an ubuntu forum is bound to get a few "why? grub is better" type responses, but thanks for the feedback :)

Regardless, I did end up using grub4dos to chain load from the xp boot menu. Not quite as elegant imo, but it works fine.