| 1 |
On Sat, 11 May 2013 12:39:41 +0100, Stroller wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> So, how was the switch? Uneventful? The more I read, and once I |
| 4 |
> >> learned you could still use a monolithic config file, the less this |
| 5 |
> >> looks like a big deal... |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > STILL use a monolithic config file? GRUB2 has to use a monolithic |
| 8 |
> > config file, usually /boot/grub2/grub.cfg. grub-mkconfig is not a |
| 9 |
> > bootloader, just an easy way of managing that monolithic |
| 10 |
> > configuration file. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You seem to have take it as a criticism, but I read previous message as |
| 13 |
> approving of monolithic config files. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> "grub2 looks ok, because it still uses a monolithic config file" |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I read it different because of the use of the word "could". It is not an |
| 18 |
option with GRUB2, it is a requirement. The format and name of the file |
| 19 |
have changed, but it is still a single file. The only optional aspect is |
| 20 |
how you create that file. With the old GRUB you have to write it by hand, |
| 21 |
now you have a second option. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
There seems a perception that you have to use the files in /etc/grub.d |
| 24 |
and /etc/default, but this a absolutely not the case, and never has been. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
If you got the words it does not mean you got the knowledge. |
Archives