Ralf Mardorf grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 21:49 +0100, Klaus wrote:
>> On 30/08/13 19:11, David Guntner wrote:
>>> David Guntner grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not only that, but given the comments around all the sections that point
>>>> at /etc/grub.d/{whatever}, does this mean that /boot/grub/grub.cfg is
>>>> being built by something, from those other files? If so, it seems that
>>>> directly editing /boot/grub/grub.cfg might not be such a good idea....
>>>
>>> Well, looking again at the grub.cfg file, specifically the top of the
>>> file, which has this in it:
>>>
>>>> #
>>>> # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE
>>>> #
>>>> # It is automatically generated by grub-mkconfig using templates
>>>> # from /etc/grub.d and settings from /etc/default/grub
>>>> #
>>>
>>> I'd say that answers *that* question (of whether or not it's a good idea
>>> to edit the file directly). :-) So I'm not entirely sure why someone
>>> would point anyone at that file as the way to edit the configuration.... :-/
>>>
>>> Anyway, if anyone else knows how I can convince grub that there's
>>> nothing on /dev/sdb1 to try and boot from (so I can get it off the boot
>>> menu), I'd sure love to know how to do it. :-) Why does the
>>> 30_os-prober come to the conclusion that there's something there?
>>
>> You can disable the "os-prober" action by setting
>> GRUB_DISABLE_OS_PROBER = true
>> in /etc/default/grub.
>> See comments in /etc/grub.d/30_os-prober and in
>> /usr/share/doc/os-prober/README
>
> I edit grub.cfg directly and even if something should overwrite it, I
> simply keep a backup.
Thanks, but I have a *strong* preference for not directly editing config
files that are generated by other processes, especially when they warn
that you *will* lose your stuff the next time the process runs at the
top of said config file. :-)
--Dave
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature