http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1017726 Bug ID: 1017726 Summary: [doc] Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Distribution Version: Leap 42.2 Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Documentation Assignee: fs@suse.com Reporter: richard.bos@xs4all.nl QA Contact: fs@suse.com Found By: --- Blocker: --- 12.2.3 Scripts in <code class="filename">/etc/grub.d</code> https://doc.opensuse.org/documentation/leap/reference/html/book.opensuse.ref... Information about 40_custom and 90_persistent are not fully clear. 1) How are 40_custom and 90_persistent related to each other? Why does one prefer over the other? 40_custom seems more flexible than 90_persistent. 2) In case of 90_persistent information seems to be missing. The lines to be stored in the /boot/grub2/grub.cfg must be between the lines: ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/90_persistent ### <data to be put here> ### END /etc/grub.d/90_persistent ### It would be good to mention this requirement here. However, in the beginning of grub.cfg the following warning is stated: # head /boot/grub2/grub.cfg # # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE # # It is automatically generated by grub2-mkconfig using templates # from /etc/grub.d and settings from /etc/default/grub As such, I would be good to mention that for 90_persistent this warning must be neglected. Perhaps in more general (refer to my remark 1) above ), it's probably better, easier to use 40_custom instead of 90_persistent. Is there a good reason for 90_persistent? If so, have it mentioned in the 90_persistent explanation please. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.