| 1 |
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:28:55 -0500 |
| 2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> If you know grub well, you can hand write a grub.cfg without |
| 5 |
> using grub-mkconfig at all. There is a perception that you need |
| 6 |
> grub-mkconfig, but this is not true. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I guess the problem is neither knowing "grub well" or liking mkconfig. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
So you start with mkconfig, thinking it making things simpler, and then |
| 11 |
landing you with a config file you have no show in hell of fixing or |
| 12 |
understanding with your limited grub knowledge. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This leaves you with a need to configure your system, but without the tools |
| 15 |
or understanding to configure your system, and the "learn up" curve is |
| 16 |
appreciably steep for something that is so basic and yet seldomly |
| 17 |
changed once created. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Hence, a more sensible default instead of mkconfig that emits a config |
| 20 |
file that mortals can sensibly edit ( including relevant inline comments |
| 21 |
describing what is done ) would be a smart move that would go a long |
| 22 |
way. |
Archives