Hello 2009/9/12 Felix Zielcke <fziel...@z-51.de>: > Am Samstag, den 12.09.2009, 14:58 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:54:19PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: >> > On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 13:03 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: >> > >> > > Pavel, if you could confirm that you're ok with checking for module >> > > existance, maybe Felix' patch can be made simpler. >> > >> > Generally, I would prefer not to rely on the existence of modules, as >> > it's a poor substitute for the knowledge whether they are actually >> > functional on the target hardware. >> >> I suppose we could put that knowledge into *.rmk files (i.e. stop building >> gfxterm on platforms that don't have video backends). But it's a bit >> annoying since it forces us to maintain duplicate declarations for it. >> > > And we'd need to define a fixed video backend for every target, else we > still have to check if there's a suitable one. > I don't see why that would be better then the current method. > And I doubt we can check inside the OS if the avaible video backends > actually work on the machine of the user. >
Perhaps the terminal_output command should fail if the terminal does not work so we can do something like for vd in <future video drivers> vbe vga ; do #assuming vga is fixed insmod $vd && break done for to in gfxterm console ; do terminal_output $to && break done Also why does gfxterm failing really matter? Shouldn't grub just continue with console? Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
