On 20/10/2007, Karl Larsen <k5di@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have put the new part of my overall grub writing on this list and > got complete quiet from the group. Blame the endless number of new threads. You've just started a new thread about GRUB instead of continueing in the old thread. > I ask you to read it again. The > definition of a root directory has been tested and it is right. It's still very unfortunate to refer to a "root directory" when dealing with GRUB. All that matters is what the GRUB root device is, how it is defined via device.map and the BIOS disk numbering scheme, and where it is mounted (!) when you access the files on it. As long as it's mounted on the /boot mount-point, referring to a "root directory" is misleading. You can even make the GRUB root device a separate partition, but still store the kernel+initrd in a sub-directory. That is because GRUB doesn't care where a file is stored as long as it is told what the absolute path to the file is and what device to enable.
