On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 23:03 -0800, MHR wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2008 12:29 PM, William L. Maltby <CentOS4Bill@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > df /boot;df -i boot # ?
>
> Not a problem - lots of space (70%) and inodes (99%) available.
>
> > Sounds like maybe space is tight? Kernel made it in, but not grub.conf?
>
> Lots of space.
>
> > Also, on my 5 box, there is no grub/grub.conf, like there is on 4. It's
> > just menu.lst
>
> I have both, and /tc/grub.conf is linked to /boot/grub/grub.conf....
>
> > Further, I discovered by outside-the-box activities that the update may
> > be sensitive to the contents of menu.lst. For sure, any changes to the
> > title lines. I'm keeping eyes wide open to see if the comment lines have
> > effect - I suspect not.
> >
>
> The grub.conf and menu.lst are identical.
>
> Any other suggestions?
Only thing I can think of now are things that I don't know about the
update process's sensitivity. Order of occurrences, inter-line
whitespace, etc. Here's my 5.0 menu.list. *BUT*, I recently modified it
to move my LFS entry to the bottom so it is no longer the default entry.
I won't know if it's still working until another update.
URL below is to my 5.x (modified by me) and my 4.x (box stock with
normal updates). Maybe something visual will spark a clue? It often does
for me.
GOTCHAS: *leading whitespace are TABS! This bites me a lot of times.
http://www.pastebin.org/16939
>
> Thanks.
>
> mhr
> <snip sig stuff>
HTH
--
Bill
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
