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.