On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 17:37:44 +0200, I wrote: > Just a brief look, trying to learn a little bit prior to the decision > whether I want to keep GRUB2: > The package doesn't contain /boot/grub/ but /boot/grub2/ - sigh. > We've had years of /etc/grub.conf -> /boot/grub/grub.conf plus > additional "menu.lst" symlinks, so users around the world referred > to either one out of three (!) possible config file paths. Now the > fun is being repeated with grub2... I think that is a bug. > > /etc/grub.d/40_custom > AND > /boot/grub2/custom.cfg > AND > the documentation defaulting to /boot/grub/custom.cfg. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/743964 After I had sent that, modified 40_custom, tested something with 41_custom, I've run into a related pitfall: # rpmls grub2|grep ^l lrwxrwxrwx /etc/grub2.cfg # file /etc/grub2.cfg /etc/grub2.cfg: symbolic link to `/boot/grub2/grub.cfg' So, more symlink madness. /etc/grub2.cfg -> /boot/grub2/grub.cfg and it doesn't even work flawlessly: # grub2-mkconfig -o /etc/grub2.cfg Generating grub.cfg ... ... # ls /etc/grub2.cfg /etc/grub2.cfg # WTF? It didn't _follow_ the symlink, it replaced it with a file. The reboot didn't use it, of course, but used the old one in /boot/grub2. Useless stuff. Notice how it says "Generating grub.cfg ..." when in fact it creates a file grub2.cfg. This is extra misleading. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/743977 -- Fedora release 16 (Verne) - Linux 3.1.0-0.rc8.git0.1.fc16.x86_64 loadavg: 0.45 0.37 0.15 -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
