From: Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: setting menu.lst name in stage2 using stage1.5 install
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 18:53:00 +0400 (EEST)
> Well, if the configuration filename is stored in Stage 2, what should you
> do when you replace Stage 2 with a new version that you have just
> compiled?
Reinstall GRUB. I don't think you hope this answer, though.
> The default menu file is hardcoded in the new file.
> That's why the default location should be preferred when Stage 1.5 is
> used.
Your assertion just means that using the default location is
preferable. Nothing should prevent the user installing it at a
different location, even if this could be inconvenient.
> Maybe instead of adding yet another argument to "install" it would be
> better to create a new command "patch" that just patches Stage 2.
That is one of the things that I hate. Do not add any new command
unnecessarily. This just makes GRUB difficult to maintain and
difficult to understand for the end-users (i.e. the command
"modulenounzip" is a mistake). From my view, modifying the path to a
configuration file in Stage 2 is a part of the installation, so it is
natural to do this in the command "install".
> It would be nice if the GRUB shell optionally accessed Stage 2 using the
> OS filesystem code. Then root access wouldn't be required to patch stage2.
Why? Do you really want to modify /boot/grub/stage2 by a non-root
user? Very dangerous.
> Also the problems with exotic filesystems and maybe RAID would be fixed.
No, never be fixed. Even if the grub shell can read a file from a
RAID, this does not make sense unless Stage 2 also supports RAID. If
Stage 2 supports RAID, the grub shell will also support RAID
automatically. It is not useful to use the filesystem support in an
operating system, anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OKUJI Yoshinori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ^o-o^
http://duff.kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~okuji (in English) m /
