Michael Mol wrote: > On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Mike Gilbert wrote: >>> Thanks for "announcing" this Dale. grub-2.00 is in ~arch as of last night. >>> >>> Given your current naming scheme, grub2-mkconfig will not detect your >>> kernels. They must be named vmlinuz-version or kernel-version. For >>> example: >>> >>> /boot/vmlinuz-3.4.3 >>> /boot/kernel-2.6.39-gentoo >>> >>> Your initramfs files look good. >>> >>> Space wise, grub needs a couple hundred sectors after your MBR to >>> embed itself. If you used the default fdisk setting when you >>> partitioned your drive, you should have 2047 free sectors that it can >>> use. >>> >>> If you have your kernels named properly and some free sectors on your >>> hard drive, setting up grub:2 is a very easy process. See the wiki >>> page for more info. >>> >>> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GRUB2_Quick_Start >>> >>> >> Thanks. Now more questions. I have read about this a few times but >> never quite figured it out. I copy the bzImage and name it bzImage-* >> because that is what it is named when I type make etc to build a >> kernel. Is there a difference between bzImage and vmlinux? If it is, >> is it safe to rename it like that or will it break something? If I need >> a vmlinux kernel instead of a bzImage, where is that thing? I have >> looked and I don't have one on mine here. Maybe I am missing >> something. Google didn't find me anything either. > AFAIK, you should be fine renaming bzImage to vmlinuz. (Note the z. > It's vmlinuz, not vmlinux") >
Well that fixed one thing already. lol I bet I would have named that wrong. ;-) vmlinuz. Weird. They did that to confuse me didn't they. :/ Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
