Bruce Dubbs wrote: > taipan67 wrote: > >> Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> >>> taipan67 wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Well, if you consider that when installing & configuring grub1 you are >>>> currently obliged to use the term 'root' in *five* different contexts, >>>> they're actually getting better... ;) >>>> >>>> >>> Really? I only know of one. Can you expand on your comment? >>> >>> -- Bruce >>> >>> >> Okay, the grub-shell uses 'root' to tell grub on which partition to find >> it's stage-files... >> >> Then in /boot/grub/menu.lst, the term is used first to tell grub on >> which partition to find the kernel, then again on the kernel-line to >> define the partition on which the linux-filesystem is rooted (at '/' aka >> 'root')... >> >> All of which must be done as the root-user... >> >> Is that five or only four? I hope i wasn't exaggerating & slandering >> grub's good name. >> >> Apologies if the above expansion is confusing - then again, that's kinda >> the point, innit? :) >> > > No apologies necessary. To me that is two: one to tell grub where the > base of things is and the other to tell the kernel where the root > partition is located. > > I didn't think about the 2nd. > > -- Bruce >
Ah, but "the base of things" isn't necessarily the same for all invocations of 'root (hd?,?)' - this is illustrated in chapter 8.4 of the lfs-book when adding a menu.lst entry for the host (or any other bootable) system. How about we drop my inclusion of the username & settle on *three* different contexts (just to be pedantic)? taipan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
