On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:46:29 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:34:11 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > You don't have to use grub-mkconfig. You can write /boot/grub/grub.cfg
> > by hand if you want, and it appears that the syntax is documented in the
> > grub info pages.
> >
>
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:34:11 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> You don't have to use grub-mkconfig. You can write /boot/grub/grub.cfg
> by hand if you want, and it appears that the syntax is documented in the
> grub info pages.
>
> William
Just saying, it would be really nice to have some documented
I broke the thread, because grub-2 configuration is an interesting
topic, but I think it deserves a separate thread from the removal of
grub-0 discussion.
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:57:25PM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:22:12 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > How do you gene
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 04, 2016 at 08:44:05PM +, Duncan wrote:
> William Hubbs posted on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:59:33 -0500 as excerpted:
>
> > I want to look into removing grub:0 from the tree; here are my thoughts
> > on why it should go.
>
> I don't disagree with the thought, but have some niggles on th
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 Mon, 3 Oct 2016 21:28:48 +0100
James Le Cuirot wrote:
> I'll also file a
> bug so we can further discuss which avenue to take.
Turns out there is already an old bug for this:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391439
--
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer
pgpfDo7QN0ug7.pgp
Our bug queue has 92 bugs!
If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs.
To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5
Thanks!
William Hubbs posted on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:59:33 -0500 as excerpted:
> I want to look into removing grub:0 from the tree; here are my thoughts
> on why it should go.
I don't disagree with the thought, but have some niggles on the
individual points. Note that I'm not nearly as negative on the i
On 20/08/16 08:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 08/15/2016 12:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel
>> wrote:
>>> 1) Stabilization is a simpler and much more formalized process compared to
>>> normal bug resolution.
>>> * There is one version to be sta
On 10/04/2016 12:45 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> -1
>
> I'd love to move to grub2 for all of my machines, but it does simply not
> work for one of my servers. I can install grub2 and it tells me that
> installation and anything else went fine, but when I try to boot with it, it
> stops and report
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:45:35 +0200
Jörg Schaible wrote:
> So, what are my options (or other people's options with such
> incompatible hardware) without grub 1? Lilo?
How about syslinux?
--
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:45:35 +0200
Jörg Schaible wrote:
> -1
>
> I'd love to move to grub2 for all of my machines, but it does simply not
> work for one of my servers. I can install grub2 and it tells me that
> installation and anything else went fine, but when I try to boot with it, it
> sto
-1
I'd love to move to grub2 for all of my machines, but it does simply not
work for one of my servers. I can install grub2 and it tells me that
installation and anything else went fine, but when I try to boot with it, it
stops and reports me that it found some conflicting area in my bios why i
18 matches
Mail list logo
