On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:49:46 +0200 (CEST) Adam Pribyl wrote:
>>
>> The only reason I know is, that "people tend to modify grub.cfg manually",
>> but with grub2 this is plain wrong anyway. Why do we support this messy
>> setup then?
>
> Because
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 12:03 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:49:46 +0200 (CEST)
> Adam Pribyl wrote:
>
> > The only reason I know is, that "people tend to modify grub.cfg manually",
> > but with grub2 this is plain wrong anyway. Why do we support this messy
> > setup then?
>
>
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:49:46 +0200 (CEST)
Adam Pribyl wrote:
> The only reason I know is, that "people tend to modify grub.cfg manually",
> but with grub2 this is plain wrong anyway. Why do we support this messy
> setup then?
Because the reverse is true - requiring a tool to modify grub.cfg
is
There are at least two bugs that sum the confusion and remains in F17:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755272
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768106
In short: kernel install adds option to grub.cfg using grubby, while
grub2-mkconfig generates a different menuentries.
W
