On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 16:16 -0500, Robert wrote:
> William L. Maltby wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 21:31 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Well, JIC, make sure yoyr /boot/grub entries look like this.
> >
> > ls -l /boot/grub/[gm]*
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 May 9 2008 /boot/grub/grub.conf ->
> > menu.lst
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1108 Apr 2 21:33 /boot/grub/menu.lst
> >
> > I'm not sure why it's set this way, probably some historical reason.
> >
> > I only mention because I don't even know which the update process
> > affects. If they aren't linked, I guess that might cause a problem.
> >
> I have long been amazed at that relationship. Mine is not the same as
> yours. (CentOS 5.3 totally updated)
Ditto here.
>
> [root@mavis download]# ls -l /boot/grub/[gm]* /etc/grub.conf
> -rw------- 1 root root 2378 Apr 2 15:07 /boot/grub/grub.conf
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 Aug 7 2008 /boot/grub/menu.lst ->
> ./grub.conf
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Aug 7 2008 /etc/grub.conf ->
> ../boot/grub/grub.conf
> [root@mavis download]#
>
> So, while menu.lst is the real file and grub.conf is a symlink to it
> on your system, the opposite is true on mine. I have no idea how that
> happened. I do know that when I do a manual edit, I don't go through a
> "who's on first" routine. I just edit one of them and move on to the
> next windmill.
Two things. Probably doesn't make any difference, but we never should
assume.
AFAIK, my 5.3 is completely "box stock" in this area, and probably 98%
of others too. I have no /etc/grub*.
$ ls -l /etc/grub*
ls: /etc/grub*: No such file or directory
I also checked my 4.6 Centos. It has the /boot/grub[mg]* relationship
reversed (menu.lst->grub.conf). I presume that's OK for 4.x as it is
also "as delivered" AFAIK.
It *does* have an /etc/grub.conf->../boot/grub/grub.conf
So I'm guessing your is left over from an update from 4.x->5.x? But
again, I don't have any information that this would affect anything.
I thought they would be worth mentioning only because mine has upgraded
trouble-free (one exception back when sqllite(?) needed to be upgraded
before the normal one) from 5.0->5.3. I did do the glibc thing first,
which should not have an effect on this I guess.
Since *lots* of other folks have also upgraded w/NP, one makes a first
assumption that something must be slightly different on your node.
> <snip sig stuff>
HTH
--
Bill
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
