on 4-7-2009 2:16 PM Robert spake the following:
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 reason 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 could 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@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 -> ./grub.conf lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Aug 7 2008 /etc/grub.conf -> ../boot/grub/grub.conf [root@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.
That has been there since RedHat switched from lilo to grub. Either there was some hard coded stuff they didn't want to mess with, or the anaconda team and the grub conversion team didn't communicate very well. That had to be back at least to RedHat 7.0, if not in the 6's.