Michael Schwendt wrote:
Blame the endless number of new threads. You've just started a new
thread about GRUB instead of continueing in the old thread.
I ask you to read it again. The
definition of a root directory has been tested and it is right.
It's still very unfortunate to refer to a "root directory" when
dealing with GRUB.
It's more unfortunate to think of a "root directory" as a property of
the thing itself. It isn't - instead it is an attribute given by the
thing viewing it. When grub boots, it will see the top of the partition
it was told to use as it's root directory. When the Linux system is up
and running, a process running there will likely have something else
that it sees as the root directory.
All that matters is what the GRUB root device is,
how it is defined via device.map and the BIOS disk numbering scheme,
and where it is mounted (!) when you access the files on it. As long
as it's mounted on the /boot mount-point, referring to a "root
directory" is misleading.
Where (or even if) the OS sees the partition is not relevant to grub,
but it is very relevant to someone who wants to modify the grub
configuration, kernel, or initrd files. This is the missing piece in
the documentation, especially if you move away from the /boot partion
convention, want to have multiple copies, etc.
You can even make the GRUB root device a
separate partition, but still store the kernel+initrd in a
sub-directory. That is because GRUB doesn't care where a file is
stored as long as it is told what the absolute path to the file is and
what device to enable.
Note that absolute paths have a leading / which we define as the root
directory.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
