On 26.09.2013 19:10, Seth Goldberg wrote: > > Ditto here. I'd prefer it stay *sh. > Even if it would mean to go with bash? Solaris was one of the worst platforms for making grub-install work there due to its very limited shell and standard tools behaving differently. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if it got broken for solaris again. I see Solaris as one of platforms which can benefit a lot from this move. > --S > > On Sep 26, 2013, at 6:35 AM, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:08:54PM +0200, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' >> Serbinenko wrote: >>> Hello, all. Recently I made some order in hostdisk.c and getroot.c >>> involving splitting in OS-specific parts. >>> In the same time I added WinAPI version of getroot/hostdisk allowing >>> grub-probe to work on windows natively >>> Also on-going is AROS-specific parts. >>> Windows and AROS are not friendly with bash. >>> The attempt to make both multiple files of same type work and handling >>> whitespaces/newlines/... in filenames would result in very ugly code >>> with loads of evals. >>> Current code may have subtle assumptions on behaviour of common tools >>> like sed and on locale (E.g. "[a-z]" doesn't cover u if locale is Estonian). >>> So to check viability I rewrote grub-install in C. This is mostly proof >>> of concept with loads of FIXMEs but I could boot i386-pc install made >>> with it. In many aspects (static variables, some tests, general >>> structure) it's reminiscent of sh version of grub-install it's based on. >>> Some functionality is likely to stay OS-specific, e.g. executing >>> compressors or determining firmware. >>> >>> I'd like to know the opinion of other people on possible switchover. If >>> switched then it'll have to be all grub-install, grub-mkrescue, >>> grub-mknetdir and grub-mkstandalone. >>> I'd like to hear from other people. >> >> Given the number of times I have had to edit grub-install in the past to >> get it to work right on a powerpc machine (I think it is now working OK), >> I would hate to have had that be C code. After all it really is mainly >> a wrapper around other grub tools. >> >> I think windows not having bash is a rather low priority to most people >> compared to actually be able to work with grub on the platforms where >> it is pretty much the only choice. >> >> So personally, based on my experience, I hate this idea. >> >> -- >> Len Sorensen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Grub-devel mailing list >> Grub-devel@gnu.org >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
