On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 03:47:15PM +0200, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:46:48PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:11:07PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote: > > > I'm a zealot. To me the correct one would be ...../etc/grub.conf > > > And everyone with a Unix-brain will understand. > > > > And everyone with a brain will understand that if /etc is on a > > partition not accessible by grub and /boot is a seperate partition > > which is accessible it just won't work. And then I'm not even talking > > about situations in which people want to change the grub config from > > within different OSes which don't support every filesystem etc. > > You don't have to be so harsh. The intention was that /boot became in > recent years a mess, and maybe it's time to put into it some Unix- > traditional order. E.g. > /boot/etc/grub.conf > /boot/lib/grub/*stage* (or even /boot/lib/grub-$version/...)
I don't see a mess. In /boot/grub is only menu.lst, device.map and a few stage files. There is certainly no need to make a full un*x directory layout for /boot. > There will of course be backwards-compatibility problems - you can't > easily move /boot/System.map-$version, probably other such things as > well. > > I also find it weird that at least RedHat writes /boot/kernel.h > every boot. Shouldn't it be somewhere under /var? Both things aren't GRUB issues. > The FHS says quite little about /boot. In particular, it says: > "Configuration files for boot loaders should be placed in /etc." I don't like the FHS, but it actually talks about bootloaders and even about GRUB and says that its config should be under /boot. > That's, of course, was written for the lilo days, the FS-agnostic > boot-loader days. Maybe it's time for an update. GRUB exists since 1995. -- Jeroen Dekkers _______________________________________________ Bug-grub mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub