El 10/04/12 11:59, intrigeri escribió:
Hi,
adrian15 wrote (09 Apr 2012 18:43:54 GMT) :
I attach the splitted patches.
Thanks!
I've merged:
* fromiso_001_renaming.patch
* fromiso_002_use_live_fromiso.patch
* fromiso_004_fromiso_uses_is_mountpoint_function.patch *but*
I amended it to s,/root/live/fromiso,/live/fromiso, given I did
not apply the 003 patch
I am doubting about 003 patch.
So am I.
Why fromiso didn't have in the first place?
No idea. Why should it have it?
Given fromiso= works well without this change AFAIK,
I see no reason to clutter the code with it.
(No, I don't think making the code more similar to findiso= counts here.)
According to Michael Prokop (I sent him an email) if fromiso option
works without that code we should remove it. It describes the grml
live-boot ancestors to be live-initramfs and knoppix. So he means that
some code might be unneccesary.
Why findiso did it? Perhaps because fromiso in the paste did
have it?
No idea, but dba started a discussion about it on #656135.
Try removing this piece of code from findiso= and see what happens?
Shall we consider this action item (fromiso rewriting based on findiso
structure) as done, and close this bug?
If the fromiso option still works I think so too.
Related to this I have found: /live/image and /root/live/image that
do not seem to be used (just rgreped for /live/image). I might open
a new bug for this but I'm not sure.
A new bug is needed if we want to go any further on this road.
Yeah. I have finally found /root/live/image being used in the final
disk, but not sure if they need to be on live-boot.
If I look up more into it I will open a new bug. Not sure I will have
time for that.
adrian15
--
Support free software. Donate to Super Grub Disk. Apoya el software
libre. Dona a Super Grub Disk. http://www.supergrubdisk.org/donate/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-live-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f8a933b.5070...@gmail.com
