Re: Why Grub? Must I Switch?
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 05:08, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> cr wrote:
> >On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:03, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> >>Paul Johnson wrote:
> >>><#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
> >>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>Hash: SHA1
> >>>"Daniel L. Miller" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >>>>I don't understand that - unless your different kernel versions are
> >>>>all using the same filename.
> >>>You have a basic shell. You can type the name, and IIRC, there is tab
> >>So you can't have an unattended boot?
> >You can certainly have an unattended boot - the GRUB menu comes up and,
> > after a specified interval, it will go on to boot the first entry on the
> > menu (unless, of course, you manually select another).
> >However, if you've just done a system upgrade or destroyed a kernel or
> >whatever, or are just Grub-floppy-booting into a system, then you can
> > bring up the Grub command line which has, as Paul said, tab
> > autocompletion - and very handy it is too for finding a kernel when you
> > can't remember whether it's vmlinuz2.4.18-bf2.4 or vmlinuz2.4.18_bf2.4
> That's not my idea of an unattended boot - which is where the comments
> on symlinks came from. If you have a symlink to your current kernel
> version, with the grub config looking at the symlink - then you can
> upgrade the kernel, hit restart, and walk away. When you come back,
> your machine is ready (assuming the kernel isn't messed up).
You're talking about upgrading the kernel and leaving it to do its first boot
unattended? Well, sure, if the symlink's been amended, it should do that.
But then, if you don't have a symlink, surely you'd just need to amend the
kernel name in menu.lst instead, and leave it to boot just the same?
(Though personally, if I'd made a significant change like that, I'd want to
watch it boot).