| 1 |
On Thu, 21 May 2015 09:19:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> You mean: copy grub.conf to grub.cfg and change its syntax to suit |
| 4 |
> >> GRUB2? I'm well used to hand editing grub.conf, so it'll be no big |
| 5 |
> >> change to operate on grub.cfg instead. I can cope with that. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > You'd need to run grub2-mkconfig once, to generate a grub.cfg to which |
| 8 |
> > you can add your entries. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> It is just a text file. I think the only challenge is that there |
| 12 |
> aren't a lot of decent examples floating around because all the docs |
| 13 |
> tend to say to run grub2-mkconfig. I found this extremely frustrating |
| 14 |
> when I first migrated to grub2. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Same here, but running grub2-mkconfig generates a better starting point |
| 17 |
than an empty file. That's your example. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> In my case grub2-mkconfig wouldn't |
| 20 |
> find anything, since it looks at filenames and my kernels/initramfs |
| 21 |
> files didn't follow any standard naming convention (they were not |
| 22 |
> installed using make install). These days I do use grub2-mkconfig. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> That said, the canned config files output by grub2-mkconfig are a bit |
| 25 |
> smarter about auto-setting things like the grub2 root. I wouldn't |
| 26 |
> bother putting anything in 40_custom though. Just run it once and |
| 27 |
> edit the file. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
That's certainly an option if your needs are not going to change. If you |
| 30 |
need to edit the file from time to time, I'd prefer to just edit the |
| 31 |
short file tweaked to my needs than the whole thing. It's really a matter |
| 32 |
of personal choice but one advantage of continuing to use grub2-mkconfig |
| 33 |
is that if GRUB upstream changes things, your config will keep track. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Save the whales. Collect the whole set. |
Archives