On Dec 27, 2019, at 08:48, Mauricio Tavares <raubvogel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Right you are. I have to say sometimes I wonder if running EFI
> in this system (200GB boot drive I am using 10G of it) makes sense.
Other than the small amount of space that the UEFI volume uses, you should consider using uefi everywhere, since legacy boot is going away in the next couple years.
> With that said, if that is the case, why would the alias
> /etc/grub2.cfg still be created if it points to a non-existing file?
> Wouldn't it make sense for it to just either not to be there at all or
> point to the efi one? I can make arguments for both sides, but not for
> a homeless alias.
>
> On a side note, would it be a case where both
> /boot/efi/EFI/centos/grub.cfg and /boot/grub2/grub.cfg are installed?
I believe the broken symlink is going to exist for either legacy or UEFI boots, as an indicator of the boot loader for the “grubby” boot management tool.
Having both resolve successfully would probably result in boot parameters not being updated automatically for the grub.cfg that you are actually using.
--
Jonathan Billings <billings@xxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
