On 6/23/05, Thomas Taylor <linxt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 23 June 2005 09:10, Alexander Dalloz wrote: > > Am Do, den 23.06.2005 schrieb Felipe Contreras um 17:29: > > > On 6/21/05, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The problem I'm having right now is that grub starts in the shell, as > > > > if no grub.conf existed... but there it is... and it seems to be ok. > > > > > > I'm going to answer myself here. Since no one in #fedora nor > > > fedora-list answered or cared to suggest anything; I tried > > > #lfs-support, and thanks to jbit I found what the problem was. > > > > > > For some reason grub is not following symlinks on ReiserFS, I don't > > > know if it's a problem specific with the grub compiled in Fedora but > > > making /etc/grub.conf a normal file it worked fine. > > > > > > Felipe Contreras > > > > I wonder a bit as I always thought /etc/grub.conf exists only for > > convenience - better to be recognized as conf(iguration) file for grub. > > And that the real configuration used by grub is only > > /boot/grub/menu.lst, to which /etc/grub.conf on Fedora by default is a > > symlink. > > > > Alexander > > Hi Alexander: > > When I do 'ls -ap /boot/grub' it indicates that @menu.lst is the symlink and > grub.conf the original. Am I misinterpreting this? > > Tom > > -- > Tom Taylor > Linux user #263467 > Federal Way, WA > Iraq war: 1,728 and counting > On my system /boot/grub/menu.list is a symbolic link to /boot/grub/grub/conf and /etc/grub.conf is symbolically linked to /boot/grub/grub.conf . Did the OP at some point delete the original grub.conf in /boot/grub?
