On 9.7.2014 22:43, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On 9.7.2014 20:35, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Question 1: has anyone used preupgrade (I used it with fc 17 -> 19, and
>>> it pretty much appeared to work, but that was on a couple of worksttions)?
>>> Opinions?
>>> Question 2: is grub still supported, or is there something that *FORCES*
>>> you to use grub2?
>>>
>>> mark "grub2 must DIE!"
>> It doesn't seem to have default packages. But you can always compile
>> your own. Of course when kernel updates you need to update config by hand.
That I thought, that's why I suggested sensible thing.
> No. I do *not* want to compile my own. We have a very few packages like
> that, and we do *not* want to be responsible for worrying and tracking
> security and bugfixes and rebuilding the packages, not when we have 170+
> servers and workstations to worry 'bout.
>> Or you could do sensible thing and learn to change grub2 configs. It
>> wasn't that hard when I had to change some kernel boot parameter.
> I've looked at them some, on the one or two fedora boxes here, and on my
> netbook's ubuntu netbook remix, and I *LOATHE* having to wade through
> dozens and dozens of lines of code to fix something.
>
> Hey, I thought "declarative" configuration files were the way to go, at
> least according to this eternal thread... and if old grub.conf isn't that,
> then your definition is a lot different than mine.
I didn't say the new config is better. I am pragmatist and just learn
the stuff thrown at me and continue chugging on. I think there might be
also somekind of tool to make the config editing more sane. Everyone can
make their own conclusions on that. I think main thing is that old times
aren't coming back and usually there is some reason for it. (Although
some of the old things I am really not wanting back either like irq
jumpers on isa motherboards and whatnot)
-vpk
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
