[CentOS] kernel update doesn't update grub.conf
lists at brimer.org
Tue Apr 7 23:30:44 UTC 2009
Quoting Robert <kerplop at sbcglobal.net>:
> William L. Maltby wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 21:31 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> >> Barry Brimer wrote on Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:29:31 -0500:
> >>> /etc/grub.conf should be a symlink to /boot/grub/grub.conf. If for some
> >>> it is not, correct it, or look directly in /boot/grub/grub.conf and see
> if the
> >>> kernel was added there.
> >> Sorry, I was talking about /boot/grub/grub.conf. I wasn't aware that one
> >> assume I was talking about /etc/grub.conf.
> > Well, JIC, make sure yoyr /boot/grub entries look like this.
> > ls -l /boot/grub/[gm]*
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 May 9 2008 /boot/grub/grub.conf ->
> > menu.lst
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1108 Apr 2 21:33 /boot/grub/menu.lst
> > I'm not sure why it's set this way, probably some historical reason.
> > I only mention because I don't even know which the update process
> > affects. If they aren't linked, I guess that might cause a problem.
> I have long been amazed at that relationship. Mine is not the same as
> yours. (CentOS 5.3 totally updated)
> [root at mavis download]# ls -l /boot/grub/[gm]* /etc/grub.conf
> -rw------- 1 root root 2378 Apr 2 15:07 /boot/grub/grub.conf
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 Aug 7 2008 /boot/grub/menu.lst ->
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Aug 7 2008 /etc/grub.conf ->
> [root at mavis download]#
> So, while menu.lst is the real file and grub.conf is a symlink to it
> on your system, the opposite is true on mine. I have no idea how that
> happened. I do know that when I do a manual edit, I don't go through a
> "who's on first" routine. I just edit one of them and move on to the
> next windmill.
According to /sbin/new-kernel-pkg .. the file that actually gets updated on x86
and x86_64 systems is /boot/grub/grub.conf
More information about the CentOS