Marco Gerards [Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:03:57PM +0200]: > Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'd like to rename the PPC executable from "grubof" to "grub". If > > nothing else, it will avoid the question "is it grubof.cfg or > > grub.cfg?". Thoughts? > > What I would prefer is _grub or so. To make clear it is not usable > just like this. We don't want people loading this file directly. > Adding a "_" might make it clear this is a file that is weird in a way > and users should not use it directly. The name `grubof' is not *that* > bad either. People do not use it directly, right? > > For any arch the config file should be called grub.cfg, IMO.
Oh, I misunderstood hollis, if that's true. I thought grubof will later be the 'call it with a configuration, wait some seconds, and grub is installed'-tool. Btw, what will the way you advise, a) like yaboot, mount the bootstrap partiton only when writing config b) or mount it as /boot, modifiy grub.cfg on it? I would like the later option, because as far as I understood, making changes to grub.cfg does not need any command execution, as grub (the binary, which can be loaded by of) didn't change. Or is this assumption wrong? Nico -- Keep it simple & stupid, use what's available. Please use pgp encryption: 8D0E 27A4 is my id. http://nico.schotteli.us | http://linux.schottelius.org
pgpnYv3wcNZtI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel