ja at jaa.org.uk
Sun Nov 18 17:23:55 UTC 2007
On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 14:37 +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> John Austin wrote:
> >> > >> Notice f8 has already got a new kernel and it was properly added to
> >> > >> grub. This would not happen if the above was just added to the main
> >> > >> grub.conf.
> >> > > Why not?
> >> > > I don't see anything special about your setup.
> >> > > Most people just have one grub.conf and this seems to work fine.
> >> > It works fine if you are not getting upgraded kernel's. I prefer to
> >> > use this method because it is open ended. I can add more systems easy.
> > It is neater to use chainloader +1 if you have several different installs
> > When you update the "chained" kernel the "chained" grub.conf is updated
> > automatically. On one machine I have a "production" F7 and "development"
> > F7 and F8s
> Nobody has explained why it is "neater".
> I have F7 on sda and F8 on sdb,
> with a common /boot on sda2.
> > I do not have to play with grub.conf on /dev/sda1
> I don't have to "play" with grub.conf either.
> I can imagine there might be a problem if there were two kernels
> for different OS's with the same name,
> but very few people are likely to meet this situation.
It is just that I prefer to have a new installations
completely isolated from previous ones, with the
installation not writing to the MBR and following blocks ie /dev/sda.
The only reason is in case things go wrong - when installing
As it happens, in the example I gave, I put the whole installation
in one partition /dev/sda6 (/ and /boot) complete with the
"secondary" grub written at the front ie /dev/sda6
F8 picks up an existing swap partition.
If required I can over write /dev/sda6 with something else without
Whether its desirable that F8 should be booted from an F8 version of grub
rather than an older version I don't know, but this approach avoids that possibility.
The assume the story must be completely different if using LVM and/or RAID.
More information about the users