Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:29:01 -0500, Dale wrote: > >>> If I trust the makefile to build the entire operating system kernel, >>> build all the modules it needs and copy all those modules to the >>> correct locations, I don't see why I can't let it copy one more file >>> to /boot. >> Thing is, I already trust what I'm doing to work, as far as the copy >> process etc. ;-) Plus, it's not something I do very often either. It >> would be my luck that I'd run that script and it screw up not only the >> new kernel but my old setup as well. > It would be a pretty sad state of affairs if you couldn't trust yourself > to be able to copy one file to /boot ;-) >
Well, giving it the correct name and all can be interesting at times. I try to be consistent but I have to also take into account what Grub will allow. I think the old Grub would allow you to name the kernel anything as long as it was the same in the config file. >> I have to add, I still like the old grub since I could also add the >> kernel entry myself, just to know it is done and will work. This new >> thing still worries me. > You can hand-configure GRUB2 too, there are even example files included. > The main benefit of grub-mkconfig is to binary distros so they can > automate the process when installing the distro or updating the kernel. > I've tried to figure out Grub2 and find it to be a beast of confusion and just a beast in general. Even the config file is complicated. The old one, it was simple and I rarely had any issues with it. I only switched because it is no longer maintained and I was concerned that it might stop working for some reason. If it was maintained, I'd still be using it. >> Don't get me started on that init thingy > Don't worry, I know better than that! I won't mention HAL either :-) > > Yea, not sure which I hate most. They both rub me the wrong way. Dale :-) :-)
