On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Craig White wrote:
----
first...I made a mistake which I would like to correct.
edit /etc/fstab (dangerous) might want to use system tools to do this
craig:x:500:500:Craig White:/home/F11/craig:/bin/bash
should have been to edit /etc/passwd
second, there are many good reasons to use uuid in references in /etc/fstab and
/boot/grub/grub.conf and some of them are listed here...
http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/146951
I read the article. I'd read something similar before.
Neither explained the superiority of
UUIDs over labels in a small system.
One of the responders prefered labels, not device nodes.
this author glosses over the most obvious reason...that an install with Fedora 9
& 11 will leave you with 2 /boot partitions and probably 2 / partitions.
With two installs, I'd better have two / partitions.
They happen to be on separate disks.
IIRC their labels are ide-slash and sata-slash .
I am not exactly sure why you bothered asking the list about all of this if you
are determined to do symbolic links and the old style labels.
To get this answer:
but the answer to your last question...No, boot sequence will never over
write/change /etc/fstab
I suspect that if you go your route, you will end up with a confused, difficult
to maintain, selinux off dual-boot computer but it is your computer and you
should do as you please.
but the answer to your last question...No, boot sequence will never over
write/change /etc/fstab
Thanks.
Until you suggested it, I would not have thought
of using bind instead of a symbolic link.
Is bind usually superior a symbolic link
or is my situation somehow special?
--
Michael [email protected]
"Pessimist: The glass is half empty.
Optimist: The glass is half full.
Engineer: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be."
--
fedora-list mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
