| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:24:17 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I still don't like the deal of having to run something after changing |
| 5 |
>> the kernel tho. It seems to lilo-ish to me. |
| 6 |
> Then how do you manage with GRUB legacy? If you don't have symlinks to |
| 7 |
> the kernels and you don't update the config, how do you boot the new |
| 8 |
> kernel? You have to update the config, GRUB2 just has an option to do |
| 9 |
> this automatically. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It's simple. I open grub.conf and add a entry into it. I do that |
| 14 |
manually so I that I know what is changed. I also keep a couple older |
| 15 |
entries just in case a kernel gets messed up, has a bug or won't boot |
| 16 |
for some reason etc. I don't use symlinks for kernels at all. I been |
| 17 |
doing it that way for years and it works very well for me. If something |
| 18 |
goes wrong, I know what I did and how to fix it. If I use some script, |
| 19 |
I may not know exactly what the script did. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The key thing is, after I change the grub.conf file, I don't have to run |
| 22 |
anything else. It just works. Grub2 does tho. That reminds me of how |
| 23 |
lilo does it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Dale |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
:-) :-) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives