Tormod Volden wrote:
> Well, the new setting is more logical, since adding "savedefault" only
> makes sense if the user has specified "default saved" in menu.lst, in
> which case the user is already sophisticated and can turn on the
> savedefault option as well.
Ahhh, I get it.
> The old setting would leave many set-ups broken (see bug references in
> the changelog). There could be a possibility to have update-grub (or
> .postinst?) check for "saved" and then guess that the user wants to
> enable savedefault, but I am not sure if it's worth the added
> complexity.
One reason to actually do so is that the current situation breaks
existing valid configurations. The fact that they are user-modified
configurations might make it somewhat less of a problem, but I think
that this is a very common setting to change for people who dual-boot,
so perhaps it's worth doing anyway.
Tormod Volden wrote:
> Well, the new setting is more logical, since adding "savedefault" only
> makes sense if the user has specified "default saved" in menu.lst, in
> which case the user is already sophisticated and can turn on the
> savedefault option as well.
Ahhh, I get it.
> The old setting would leave many set-ups broken (see bug references in
> the changelog). There could be a possibility to have update-grub (or
> .postinst?) check for "saved" and then guess that the user wants to
> enable savedefault, but I am not sure if it's worth the added
> complexity.
One reason to actually do so is that the current situation breaks
existing valid configurations. The fact that they are user-modified
configurations might make it somewhat less of a problem, but I think
that this is a very common setting to change for people who dual-boot,
so perhaps it's worth doing anyway.
Cheers,
Bart