grub proposal

[Paul Howarth]

Aaron Konstam wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 09:29 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 08:31:34AM -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
>>> To my surprise I found that the above statement is true. Could someone
>>> explain why we need
>>> /boot/grub/menu.lst and /etc/grub.conf both as soft links
>>> to  /boot/grub/grub.conf.
>>> Was this created by the "Department of Redundancy Department? :-)
>> Probably for the convenience of programs and users who expect to find the
>> config file in one of those locations.
> That makes no sense. The menu.lst link and the grub.conf file are in the
> same location. You reason makes sense for the link from /etc/grub.conf
> but not for the other link from menu.lst.

grub.conf is the RedHat name for this file.

menu.lst is the upstream name

Users will look for one file or the other depending on their background.

Paul.