[TriLUG] Grub configuration file

[Jeremy Katz]

On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 23:37, Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 23:33, Jason Tower wrote:
> > /etc/grub.conf is actually a symlink to /boot/grub/grub.conf.  there is no 
> > /boot/grub.conf.
>
> Thanks Jason.  That still doesn't answer my question as to why
> redhat felt the need to modify the default configuration filename
> which is /boot/grub/menu.lst.  Is it just a way to make the RHCE
> tests harder or are they trying to differentiate their distribution?
> If they're going to put a symlink from /etc/grub.conf there's absolutely
> no reason at all to change the name (the symlink will happily point
> to a different name).  From where I sit, it just looks like RH is
> trying to make more work for the grub maintainers (who now have
> to deal with bug reports about things that RH changed).

It's a long ago thing...  and changing things like that is very hard
once they've been done to begin with.  

For one thing, menu.lst is not a very obvious (at least, not to me) name
for the config file.  There were a few other reasons, but I've honestly
forgotten them by now.  It's all been hashed over multiple times on the
GRUB list and if you really care that much, go read the archives.  I
also create a symlink of /boot/grub/menu.lst so that people who have
used GRUB in other places don't get confused.

My personal preference, expressed multiple times on the GRUB list by
now, is grub.cfg.  *shrug* 

And in the scheme of our GRUB changes, the name of the config file is
minor compared to the splashimage patch.

Cheers,

Jeremy

PS Creating extra work for upstream maintainers would be a ridiculous
thing for us to do anyway because the upstream maintainers will just
choose to ignore things and its then just additional work for us.  So
please reserve the conspiracy theories for when we really need them ;)