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.reference/cha.grub2.html#sec.grub2.etc_grub_d 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.