Top posting - because answer is general to all the emails to list:
1) My focus was on Eli Schwartz e-mail, where he mentioned about his
proposed changes to Grub Wiki.
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2018-December/045830.html
2) I even said that grub-mkconfig should NOT be
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 07:56:29 +0530, Amish via arch-general wrote:
>But from user manual point of view you can not recommend hand written
>grub first.
I don't have a grub.cfg at hand, but you could add boot options for
just one kernel of one install in a similar way to grub.cfg as you
could do for
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 07:56:29 +0530, Amish via arch-general wrote:
>Thats because you have assumed that people will install only Linux.
>And that too plain Linux.
Chainloading e.g. FreeBSD, Windows or whatsoever is even simpler.
>And that too no grub modules. No fancy stuff.
>
>That too no
On 12/8/18 8:14 PM, Amish via arch-general wrote:
> In my opinion DIY (Do it yourself) does not mean hand write everything
> from scratch.
>
> KISS (Keep it simple) implies that if you can use a tool (grub-mkconfig
> in this case) then use it. Because handwriting the whole grub file is
> time
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 06:44:52 +0530, Amish via arch-general wrote:
>KISS (Keep it simple) implies that if you can use a tool
>(grub-mkconfig in this case) then use it.
No, it does not.
The Arch Linux kernel names don't change. They are always something
like e.g. vmlinuz-linux, never something like
On 12/9/18 2:14 AM, Amish via arch-general wrote:
> Simple is to use a tool in this case. Hand writing a full conf file is no way
> simple.
Are you sure about that? Here's your handwritten 'full conf file'...
menuentry "Linux" {
linux /boot/vmlinuz-linux root=... rw
initrd
On 09/12/18 6:13 am, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
Well, yes. In fact, I consider the mere existence of the grub-mkconfig
command to be a harsh sin. :p
...
It boggles my mind that a distribution that prides itself on:
- DIY,
- KISS,
- understanding how things work, and
- the
On 09/12/18 5:31 am, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
Could we have handled this better? Yes -- if I were the person who
performed that update, I would have added a message echoed in the
post_upgrade:
"Performing one-time restore of user-generated grub.cfg due to removing
it from the
On 12/8/18 7:45 AM, mar77i via arch-general wrote:
> For the kernel we run mkinitcpio. So there shouldn't be a real reason
> why we shouldn't run grub-mkconfig >/${main_grub_dir}/grub.cfg for
> grub. That being said, the path is /boot/grub.cfg for me, so I'm not
> sure how we'd get the installfile
On 12/8/18 3:55 AM, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Having spotted
>
> warning: /boot/grub/grub.cfg saved as /boot/grub/grub.cfg.pacsave
>
> during today's large package upgrade, I went to /boot/grub afterwards
> expecting work to do. grub.cfg.pacsave didn't exist. `pacman -Ql grub'
>
On 2018-12-08 13:45, mar77i via arch-general wrote:
> For the kernel we run mkinitcpio. So there shouldn't be a real reason why we
> shouldn't run grub-mkconfig >/${main_grub_dir}/grub.cfg for grub. That being
> said, the path is /boot/grub.cfg for me, so I'm not sure how we'd get the
>
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 9:55 AM, Ralph Corderoy
wrote:
>
> Can a better solution to this be engineered?
>
For the kernel we run mkinitcpio. So there shouldn't be a real reason why we
shouldn't run grub-mkconfig >/${main_grub_dir}/grub.cfg for grub. That
Hi,
Having spotted
warning: /boot/grub/grub.cfg saved as /boot/grub/grub.cfg.pacsave
during today's large package upgrade, I went to /boot/grub afterwards
expecting work to do. grub.cfg.pacsave didn't exist. `pacman -Ql grub'
showed grub doesn't own anything in /boot. Google led me to
13 matches
Mail list logo
