| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 9:02 AM Caveman Al Toraboran |
| 2 |
<toraboracaveman@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> what one doesn't use grub? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
None that I'm aware of, but I use grub so I haven't gone looking. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Like I said, I used to do it this way and get why, but since doing it |
| 10 |
the new grub way has made my life easier than fighting it with some |
| 11 |
side benefits, I'm doing it that way. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Now, if you're using a tool that requires manually editing config |
| 14 |
files every time make install dumps a version number into the various |
| 15 |
filenames, I completely sympathize with wanting to avoid this. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Oh, one thing you might consider is symlinks assuming your bootloader |
| 18 |
supports them. Then genkernel/make/whatever can create fancy |
| 19 |
filenames as much as they want, and you can just symlink /boot/vmlinuz |
| 20 |
to whatever you want to start up and so on. I have no idea what |
| 21 |
bootloaders support symlinks on what filesystems - I know they tend to |
| 22 |
be really simple tools so I wouldn't take this for granted. It would |
| 23 |
be trivial to test - just create a symlink of a kernel in your |
| 24 |
existing /boot and copy/paste your existing menu option to add a new |
| 25 |
one that references the symlink instead of the existing kernel, and |
| 26 |
see if it boots... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives