On 9.7.2014 22:43, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> On 9.7.2014 20:35, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >>> Question 1: has anyone used preupgrade (I used it with fc 17 -> 19, and >>> it pretty much appeared to work, but that was on a couple of worksttions)? >>> Opinions? >>> Question 2: is grub still supported, or is there something that *FORCES* >>> you to use grub2? >>> >>> mark "grub2 must DIE!" >> It doesn't seem to have default packages. But you can always compile >> your own. Of course when kernel updates you need to update config by hand. That I thought, that's why I suggested sensible thing. > No. I do *not* want to compile my own. We have a very few packages like > that, and we do *not* want to be responsible for worrying and tracking > security and bugfixes and rebuilding the packages, not when we have 170+ > servers and workstations to worry 'bout. >> Or you could do sensible thing and learn to change grub2 configs. It >> wasn't that hard when I had to change some kernel boot parameter. > I've looked at them some, on the one or two fedora boxes here, and on my > netbook's ubuntu netbook remix, and I *LOATHE* having to wade through > dozens and dozens of lines of code to fix something. > > Hey, I thought "declarative" configuration files were the way to go, at > least according to this eternal thread... and if old grub.conf isn't that, > then your definition is a lot different than mine. I didn't say the new config is better. I am pragmatist and just learn the stuff thrown at me and continue chugging on. I think there might be also somekind of tool to make the config editing more sane. Everyone can make their own conclusions on that. I think main thing is that old times aren't coming back and usually there is some reason for it. (Although some of the old things I am really not wanting back either like irq jumpers on isa motherboards and whatnot) -vpk