On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:11:33PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote: > El lun, 08-09-2008 a las 22:48 +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen escribió: > > phcoder wrote: > > > Hello. As I said in another email there is no need for it. I send a > > > patch for it. > > > > Doesn't this break our rescue mode ? > How would it? As with other commands, there would be two versions of it, > one for rescue and one for normal. Besides, what is the point in having > the "boot" command in kernel -and thus always available- if you can't > load a kernel to boot?
Vladimir, you're proposing an important change because it modifies the goals of the rescue mode, but I see there's neither significant support for or against your proposal. I think it would help if you provide numbers on how much size do kernel and boot.mod have before and after the proposed change (on i386-pc). -- 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
