Re: [gentoo-user] can genkernel install files with different names?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:29:01 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>>> If I trust the makefile to build the entire operating system kernel,
>>> build all the modules it needs and copy all those modules to the
>>> correct locations, I don't see why I can't let it copy one more file
>>> to /boot.
>> Thing is, I already trust what I'm doing to work, as far as the copy
>> process etc.  ;-)  Plus, it's not something I do very often either.  It
>> would be my luck that I'd run that script and it screw up not only the
>> new kernel but my old setup as well. 
> It would be a pretty sad state of affairs if you couldn't trust yourself
> to be able to copy one file to /boot ;-)
>

Well, giving it the correct name and all can be interesting at times.  I
try to be consistent but I have to also take into account what Grub will
allow.  I think the old Grub would allow you to name the kernel anything
as long as it was the same in the config file. 


>> I have to add, I still like the old grub since I could also add the
>> kernel entry myself, just to know it is done and will work.  This new
>> thing still worries me.
> You can hand-configure GRUB2 too, there are even example files included.
> The main benefit of grub-mkconfig is to binary distros so they can
> automate the process when installing the distro or updating the kernel.
>

I've tried to figure out Grub2 and find it to be a beast of confusion
and just a beast in general.  Even the config file is complicated.  The
old one, it was simple and I rarely had any issues with it.  I only
switched because it is no longer maintained and I was concerned that it
might stop working for some reason.  If it was maintained, I'd still be
using it. 

>> Don't get me started on that init thingy
> Don't worry, I know better than that! I won't mention HAL either :-)
>
>

Yea, not sure which I hate most.  They both rub me the wrong way. 

Dale

:-)  :-)