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 > 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. According to /sbin/new-kernel-pkg .. the file that actually gets updated on x86 and x86_64 systems is /boot/grub/grub.conf