On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 01:03:07PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 06:36:38PM +0100, Håkon Alstadheim wrote: > > Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: > > > > > >> why do you use "/boot/boot/grub/" and not the default "/boot/grub/"? > > >> what is in /boot/grub/menu.lst vs /boot/boot/grub/menu.lst ? > > >> > > >> > > > Using /boot/boot/grub is necessary when /boot is its own filesystem. > > > > > > > > I'd think most people with that setup have /boot/boot symlinked to /boot ? > > > You can't do that becasue the first thing grub looks for is the boot/ > directory on the "root" filesystem. If /boot is a separate partition, > it is the first thing that grub sees, and so it looks for boot/ under > it. When we mount it on /boot, it ends up looking to us (but not to > grub) as /boot/boot. I thought the /boot/boot thing came from installing grub incorrectly. When I have been too smart for my own good and applied a --root-directory switch to grub-install, its ended up in /boot/boot. If I just let it work on its own it end sup in /boot. This is with /boot on a seperate partition. At elast once, I've messed up and had it in /boot/boot and just mv'ed it up one level and all works well. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature