On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:27:20PM +0200, phcoder wrote: > > > > Could this be made more transparent? For example, with a variable. > > > Here perhaps it could be. But in other usage cases like putting the dos > boot files into the right place or doing swapfso it couldn't.
We intentionally don't support filesystem writing. This was discussed before, I think. > > Also, I'm worried that this occupies core image size for non-critical > > functionality. > > > If filesystem module doesn't use this feature it just adds a zero > pointer to grub_fs structure. Yes, but what if it does? > may be implemented in an extra module > (like ntfscomp) or there could be 2 modules for the same filesystem: > basic and advanced one. 2 modules for the same filesystem can lead to trouble; I don't think GRUB can handle this situation properly (for example, if you need ext2.mod to access $prefix, how to you replace it with the new module, which needs to be loaded precisely from $prefix?). An extra module would be saner, IMO. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
