Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:14:09PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> > Hrm. What was wrong with the existing format? :/ Those are the kinds of >> > upstream changes that are most aggravating for administrators (or at least >> > for this administrator here :). > >> hehe it has been much improved and added some neat features. :-) >> Which tells me nothing. There was nothing missing from menu.lst for me that > I felt needed to be "improved" with a new format...
The new grub.cfg behaves more like a shell, it can scripting capabilities and allow more freedom to the user do what he wish to. For reference: http://grub.enbug.org/grub.cfg >> > At least in the case of x86, I'm not sure how that's any different from >> > what >> > happens with any other upgrade of the bootloader. I guess the grub1 boot >> > sector is incompatible with grub2, and this is what has to be rewritten on >> > upgrade? > >> Yes, it's incompatible but until the user run grub-install he would >> still being using the previous release. > > Ok. This means that the actual upgrade from grub1 to grub2 should be > totally safe for all users by default, because grub-install is not > automatically run, yes? Yes. It won't change the system until user runs grub-install by himself. It would deserve a note while upgrading to ask the user to do it as soon as possible and if we opt to keep grub available we can also explain how to revert to upgrade if need. -- O T A V I O S A L V A D O R --------------------------------------------- E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br --------------------------------------------- "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
