On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, David Lehman wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 22:09 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:25:19 +0000 (UTC), J (JB) wrote:
>>
>>> I think you criticize him unjustly.
>
> Perhaps. I am getting tired of the protests to grub2 and every other
> thing that changes.
>
>>
>> grub2-mkconfig is just a brute-force shell script that ends with
>>
>> # none of the children aborted with error, install the new grub.cfg
>> mv -f ${grub_cfg}.new ${grub_cfg}
>>
>> so instead of not shipping an incompatible /etc/grub2.cfg symlink as
>> long as this tool obviously cannot handle the symlink, there are lame and
>> dubious attempts at defending the symlink.
>
> I personally think we should not ship the symlink, mainly because it is
> superfluous. Seriously, is '/etc/grub2.cfg' so much easier to remember
> (or type) than '/boot/grub2/grub.cfg'? Nope.
+1
There should never be symlink for grub1 either. Changing grub1 config name
was also not the best idea as it just increased the noise.
Adam Pribyl
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
