> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeroen Dekkers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 03:10 PM > To: 'Yedidyah Bar-David' > Cc: 'Uwe Dippel', [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Name of config file looks ambiguous to GRUB newbies > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 03:47:15PM +0200, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:46:48PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:11:07PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote: > > > > I'm a zealot. To me the correct one would be ...../etc/grub.conf > > > > And everyone with a Unix-brain will understand. > > > > > > And everyone with a brain will understand that if /etc is on a > > > partition not accessible by grub and /boot is a seperate partition > > > which is accessible it just won't work. And then I'm not even talking > > > about situations in which people want to change the grub config from > > > within different OSes which don't support every filesystem etc. > > > > You don't have to be so harsh. The intention was that /boot became in > > recent years a mess, and maybe it's time to put into it some Unix- > > traditional order. E.g. > > /boot/etc/grub.conf > > /boot/lib/grub/*stage* (or even /boot/lib/grub-$version/...) > > I don't see a mess. In /boot/grub is only menu.lst, device.map and a > few stage files. There is certainly no need to make a full un*x > directory layout for /boot. > > > There will of course be backwards-compatibility problems - you can't > > easily move /boot/System.map-$version, probably other such things as > > well. > > > > I also find it weird that at least RedHat writes /boot/kernel.h > > every boot. Shouldn't it be somewhere under /var? > > Both things aren't GRUB issues. > > > The FHS says quite little about /boot. In particular, it says: > > "Configuration files for boot loaders should be placed in /etc." > > I don't like the FHS, but it actually talks about bootloaders and even > about GRUB and says that its config should be under /boot. > > > That's, of course, was written for the lilo days, the FS-agnostic > > boot-loader days. Maybe it's time for an update. > > GRUB exists since 1995. >
Hi, I just want to clarify my original suggestion about the GRUB config file, because I think it has gotten lost. A lowercase 'L' looks a lot like a number '1' so it is difficult to tell if the config file name should be 'menu dot list' or 'menu dot first'. I think changing the config file's name, not the path, would eliminate the confusion. Dave _______________________________________________ Bug-grub mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub
