RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1229341 - system/grub: Minor rewrite
Summary: system/grub: Minor rewrite
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: preupgrade-assistant-el6toel7
Version: 6.7
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Petr Stodulka
QA Contact: Alois Mahdal
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1335038
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-06-08 13:47 UTC by Alois Mahdal
Modified: 2016-11-04 08:59 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version: preupgrade-assistant-el6toel7-0.6.59-1.el6
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Previously, the "GRUB to GRUB2 migration" module contained only the information about the fix enabling the modification of boot parameters. With this update, the information about expected manual actions after the in-place upgrade has been added.
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-04 08:59:53 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHEA-2016:2618 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE preupgrade-assistant-el6toel7 bug fix and enhancement update 2016-11-03 16:23:57 UTC

Description Alois Mahdal 2015-06-08 13:47:43 UTC 
Description of problem
======================

There are several problems with current text for grub:

>     Grub package is used as loader of linux system.
>
>     Preupgrade assistant will backup file /boot/grub/splash.xpm.gz
>     and restore restore them after inplace upgrade to /boot/grub directory.
>
>     Modification of boot parameters is not possible without that file.

 *  Confusion: how many files are backed up/restored?

 *  "restore restore"

 *  Spelling: shoudn't that be "Linux"?

 *  Spelling: GRUB (Gnu Grand Unified Bootloader) is proper spelling for
    grub :)

 *  Spelling: I'm not sure about official spelling but there's no
    such word as "inplace".  KB article and docs use term "in-place
    upgrade".  OTOH, in this context, I believe "the upgrade"
    would be fine.

 *  Is the last sentence correct (seems to hard)?


Version-Release number of selected component
============================================

preupgrade-assistant-contents-0.6.25-1.el6.noarch
Comment 2 Petr Stodulka 2016-01-06 17:47:54 UTC 
"Fixed In Version" was set in error.
Comment 6 Alois Mahdal 2016-07-29 22:52:14 UTC 
New text says:

> The file splash.xpm.gz allows you to modify boot parameters during the booting.

Is this really true?  splash.xpl.gz is nothing but a bitmap; it does not "allow" you to do it.

The original text was already misleading; I'm not sure what orignal author meant, but absence of a mere bitmap should not prevent you from changing that (unless what they meant is that there is a bug in some auxiliary tool;  in that case it should be meant clear.)
Comment 7 Petr Stodulka 2016-08-01 08:43:35 UTC 
Peto, can You clarify it? I am not so familiar with GRUB here.
Comment 8 Petr Hracek 2016-08-15 12:23:59 UTC 
Well, we have realized a time ago, if file is missing then we are not able to update/delete/add grub menu options.

That's all. Absence of bitmap really prevent changing grub options.
Comment 9 Alois Mahdal 2016-08-15 14:13:27 UTC 
(In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #8)
> Well, we have realized a time ago, if file is missing then we are not able
> to update/delete/add grub menu options.
> 
> That's all. Absence of bitmap really prevent changing grub options.

Seems to me as what I mentioned above: there is a bug/limitation in some auxiliary tool we happen to use ... I can't imagine other way.  Can you confirm that?

Does that mean that people who don't (want to) use GRUB bitmap at all are out of luck?

I think it sounds silly just saying that bitmap enables you to change settings--that just does not make sense; we should be more specific.

(Also I have a (Debian) machine with GRUB w/o bitmap and I'm sure I have changed settings there)
Comment 10 Petr Hracek 2016-08-25 14:08:10 UTC 
Hi David,

I have a question.
During an in-place upgrade we have to backup file /etc/grub/splash.xpm.gz.
Without them, we are not able to edit grub configuration line over boot menu.

File is owned by redhat-logos package.
On RHEL-6 redhat-logos package owns the file splash.xpm.gz. Unfortunately redhat-logos disappear from package redhat-logos on RHEL-7. Is this a bug for grub?

Relevant old BZ is:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146537

Can you please look at it?
Why are we not able to edit grub configuration line during boot if file does not exist?
Comment 11 Petr Hracek 2016-08-25 14:09:33 UTC 
Can you please give us an overview, why splash.xpm.gz disappear?
Comment 12 Ray Strode [halfline] 2016-08-25 17:31:14 UTC 
It wasn't getting installed in a place grub2 would look for it (see bug 1063246), and it isn't getting used anyway, since we don't want a splash at the bootloader menu ( see bug 1003873 comment 1 )
Comment 13 Petr Hracek 2016-08-26 10:59:04 UTC 
Does it also mean, grub is replaced by grub2 in case of upgrade RHEL-6 -> RHEL-7?
Or grub remains as a bootloader on RHEL-7 instead of grub2?
Comment 14 Ray Strode [halfline] 2016-08-26 14:08:24 UTC 
not sure. Peter would know.
Comment 15 Petr Stodulka 2016-08-29 09:07:35 UTC 
AFAIK inplace upgrade still uses grub instead of grub2 on RHEL-7 and manual
steps from user are required after upgrade to install and configure grub2 completely, because we can't cover all possible changes automatically.

This produced several bugs already over time, including troubles with grubby and our workround where we modify config file automatically due to crash of grubby.

Is it answer on your question?
Comment 23 Alois Mahdal 2016-10-06 14:04:54 UTC 
More issues have been identified:

 *  Texts and meta-data focus on splash.xpm, instead of explaining that
    the GRUB part of upgrade has to be done manually.

 *  Module would signalize 'pass' if splash.xpm.gz did not exist on the
    old system.  While not sure if this is likely, it would be incorrect
    as manual steps are needed always.

Latest patch (already included in build now in Fixed In Version field) brings following changes:

 *  Texts and meta-data now explain situation in full extent.

 *  The splash.xpm.gz risk has been removed; instead the issue (which we
    can easily work around) is mentioned as part of solution text.

 *  New unconditional risk has been added to call attention to the need
    of manual steps.

Changing the focus of this bug.
Comment 26 Alois Mahdal 2016-10-13 02:18:42 UTC 
Tested with preupgrade-assistant-el6toel7-0.6.59-3.el6.

The system/grub module will now always contain updated text and (medium) risk, clearly explaining the situation including steps to be done.  The module result is  needs_inspection.
Comment 28 errata-xmlrpc 2016-11-04 08:59:53 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2016-2618.html
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.