Re: Name of config file looks ambiguous to GRUB newbies

[Yedidyah Bar-David]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:46:48PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:11:07PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> > I'm a zealot. To me the correct one would be ...../etc/grub.conf
> > And everyone with a Unix-brain will understand.
> 
> And everyone with a brain will understand that if /etc is on a
> partition not accessible by grub and /boot is a seperate partition
> which is accessible it just won't work.  And then I'm not even talking
> about situations in which people want to change the grub config from
> within different OSes which don't support every filesystem etc.

You don't have to be so harsh. The intention was that /boot became in
recent years a mess, and maybe it's time to put into it some Unix-
traditional order. E.g.
/boot/etc/grub.conf
/boot/lib/grub/*stage* (or even /boot/lib/grub-$version/...)

There will of course be backwards-compatibility problems - you can't
easily move /boot/System.map-$version, probably other such things as
well.

I also find it weird that at least RedHat writes /boot/kernel.h
every boot. Shouldn't it be somewhere under /var?

The FHS says quite little about /boot. In particular, it says:
"Configuration files for boot loaders should be placed in /etc."
That's, of course, was written for the lilo days, the FS-agnostic
boot-loader days. Maybe it's time for an update.
-- 
Didi