On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Craig White wrote:
---- first...I made a mistake which I would like to correct. edit /etc/fstab (dangerous) might want to use system tools to do this craig:x:500:500:Craig White:/home/F11/craig:/bin/bash should have been to edit /etc/passwd second, there are many good reasons to use uuid in references in /etc/fstab and /boot/grub/grub.conf and some of them are listed here... http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/146951
I read the article. I'd read something similar before. Neither explained the superiority of UUIDs over labels in a small system. One of the responders prefered labels, not device nodes.
this author glosses over the most obvious reason...that an install with Fedora 9 & 11 will leave you with 2 /boot partitions and probably 2 / partitions.
With two installs, I'd better have two / partitions. They happen to be on separate disks. IIRC their labels are ide-slash and sata-slash .
I am not exactly sure why you bothered asking the list about all of this if you are determined to do symbolic links and the old style labels.
To get this answer:
but the answer to your last question...No, boot sequence will never over write/change /etc/fstab
I suspect that if you go your route, you will end up with a confused, difficult to maintain, selinux off dual-boot computer but it is your computer and you should do as you please. but the answer to your last question...No, boot sequence will never over write/change /etc/fstab
Thanks. Until you suggested it, I would not have thought of using bind instead of a symbolic link. Is bind usually superior a symbolic link or is my situation somehow special? -- Michael hennebry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Pessimist: The glass is half empty. Optimist: The glass is half full. Engineer: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be." -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
