On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 09:54 -0500, richardvo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Pavel Roskin <pro...@gnu.org> wrote: > > I don't see how grub-mkconfig could compensate for a missing feature in > > save_env. Perhaps I'm missing the context here. > > AFAICT, it's grub.cfg that has to work around using two commands instead of > one.
Yes, if we want to keep backward compatibility with older modules. > Therefore grub-mkconfig has to generate a longer grub.cfg (not sure > how this makes grub-mkconfig uglier), but that's an incomplete > assessment. There's also a different burden placed on user-edited > configs and usage of the grub console, correct? Correct. > I don't think that the suggestion was meant to save a few bytes in > grub-mkconfig. I think it was suggesting a nicer interface for users > working in the console. Yes. Also, grub-mkconfig could use it once we decide to break backward compatibility with the last version that didn't support save_env with a name. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
