sysadm.taipan67 at btinternet.com
Sat Oct 20 09:51:39 PDT 2007
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> taipan67 wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> taipan67 wrote:
>>>> Well, if you consider that when installing & configuring grub1 you are
>>>> currently obliged to use the term 'root' in *five* different contexts,
>>>> they're actually getting better... ;)
>>> Really? I only know of one. Can you expand on your comment?
>>> -- Bruce
>> Okay, the grub-shell uses 'root' to tell grub on which partition to find
>> it's stage-files...
>> Then in /boot/grub/menu.lst, the term is used first to tell grub on
>> which partition to find the kernel, then again on the kernel-line to
>> define the partition on which the linux-filesystem is rooted (at '/' aka
>> All of which must be done as the root-user...
>> Is that five or only four? I hope i wasn't exaggerating & slandering
>> grub's good name.
>> Apologies if the above expansion is confusing - then again, that's kinda
>> the point, innit? :)
> No apologies necessary. To me that is two: one to tell grub where the
> base of things is and the other to tell the kernel where the root
> partition is located.
> I didn't think about the 2nd.
> -- Bruce
Ah, but "the base of things" isn't necessarily the same for all
invocations of 'root (hd?,?)' - this is illustrated in chapter 8.4 of
the lfs-book when adding a menu.lst entry for the host (or any other
How about we drop my inclusion of the username & settle on *three*
different contexts (just to be pedantic)?
More information about the lfs-dev