On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 01:54:51 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 06:04:38 -0500
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > What you really want is another template file.
>
> I'd be happy with that. See the other thread with "grub-2" In the
> title.
>
> > I'm happy with mkconfig, but I did hand-r
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 06:04:38 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> What you really want is another template file.
I'd be happy with that. See the other thread with "grub-2" In the title.
> I'm happy with mkconfig, but I did hand-roll my config files before
> that. The docs are out there. However, for wh
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:22:12 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> How do you generate your grub-0 config files?
>
> I didn't, it came as a stock example file with comments which I edited
> in a minimal fashion until it worked.
>
Not a surprise, th
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:22:12 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> How do you generate your grub-0 config files?
I didn't, it came as a stock example file with comments which I edited
in a minimal fashion until it worked.
>
> You can just use the same method to generate the grub-2 ones...
No, I regenera
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> Hence, a more sensible default instead of mkconfig that emits a config
> file that mortals can sensibly edit ( including relevant inline comments
> describing what is done ) would be a smart move that would go a long
> way.
>
How do you gene
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:28:55 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> If you know grub well, you can hand write a grub.cfg without
> using grub-mkconfig at all. There is a perception that you need
> grub-mkconfig, but this is not true.
I guess the problem is neither knowing "grub well" or liking mkconfig.
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:04:12PM -0500, Dan Douglas wrote:
> Also grub2-mkconfig is disgusting. I wonder if anybody is interested
> in making something better because I doubt it would be much work for
> someone that knows grub well. 90% of what it does is generate
> boilerplate code that few peop
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> I'm not against removing grub1, but why are the only versions of grub
> in the tree betas? They don't have a proper release cycle?
The upstream grub maintainer has been too busy to work on a release.
He has recently recruited some people to hel
I'm not against removing grub1, but why are the only versions of grub
in the tree betas? They don't have a proper release cycle?
Also grub2-mkconfig is disgusting. I wonder if anybody is interested
in making something better because I doubt it would be much work for
someone that knows grub well. 9
On 10/03/2016 05:59 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> - The only real problem with grub:2 has to do with pperception. Yes,
> their documentation has a strong preference toward using their
> configuration script (grub-mkconfig) to generate your grub.cfg, but
> this is not required.
>
Migration
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 16:59 CDT, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I want to look into removing grub:0 from the tree; here are my thoughts
> on why it should go.
>
> - the handbook doesn't document grub:0; we officially only support
> grub:2.
>
> - Removing grub:0 from the tree doesn't stop y
All,
I want to look into removing grub:0 from the tree; here are my thoughts
on why it should go.
- the handbook doesn't document grub:0; we officially only support
grub:2.
- There are multiple bugs open against grub:0 (15 at my last count). A
number of these as I understand it are because o
12 matches
Mail list logo
