On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 04:48:33PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 22:16 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > > I am totally against ripping off device.map. Pavel's idea is too > > idealistic, > > and that regresses the flexibility. > > Actually, it could be said that having device.map regresses flexibility. > Suppose I want to install GRUB on a flash drive that is seen > as /dev/sdb. I need to add /dev/sdb to device.map even though I'm not > going to see that flash drive again. I also need to check the options > to ensure that everything is installed on the flash drive and nothing is > installed elsewhere. > > Suppose that we don't have device.map. Then I don't need to add entries > for temporary devices. Also, I won't be able to create a cross-drive > configuration by accident, simple because it won't be allowed by > default.
But we could have device.map _and_ a fallback mechanism for when there's no match (e.g. give it a "(dummy0)" drive). I even STR I implemented that in some patch. -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What good is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
