[CentOS] kernel update doesn't update grub.conf

Robert kerplop at sbcglobal.net
Tue Apr 7 21:16:25 UTC 2009

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 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.

More information about the CentOS mailing list