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 ->
./grub.conf
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Aug 7 2008 /etc/grub.conf ->
../boot/grub/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.