On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 01:38:18AM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On 24.12.2013 01:34, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:21:38PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' > > Serbinenko wrote: > >> The idea was that platform-independent scripts were still runnable, > >> they'll just produce the same output N times and this list is just an > >> optimisations, specially to avoid running os-prober N times. > > > > Granted, but in some cases those scripts might not be idempotent: > > consider a user-written "42_custom" (or whatever) script that adds a > > menu entry, for instance. > > Only one instance of it will be included on runtime.
Well, OK, but is there really no possible grub.cfg code that would be non-idempotent? Besides, people already complain about generated grub.cfg files being noisy. :-) > >> The alternative will be to have something along the lines of different > >> hashbang or implementing this functionality as sh functions. > > > > How about this simpler option: any script that needs to be run for each > > platform could have a magic comment that we grep for in grub-mkconfig. > > It's certainely a possibility even though I'm not a fan of magic comments. Nor I, normally, but they seem like a reasonable option here. > >>> We should rationalise this before issuing anything as part of a stable > >>> release, perhaps by adopting the same target_cpu/platform terminology > >>> used in the build system. Furthermore, if we made the namespaces > >>> match up then it would be fairly straightforward to only run grub.d > >>> scripts for platforms for which we have installed GRUB modules, which > >>> seems as though it would be sensible. > >> > >> GRUB platform names don't match with the OS compatibility. On x86 other > >> than xen you can use the same kernel on all the platforms. On ARM, for > >> what is arm-uboot platform for us may require different kernels for > >> different hardware. > > > > OK, but if it is a different concept then it should have a different > > name, not "platform" - otherwise it just seems confusing. > > Agreed. Do you have an idea for name? Hmm. Maybe GRUB_OS_KERNEL_TYPE or GRUB_EXPECTED_KERNEL or something? (We would also want to avoid confusion with the GRUB kernel.) -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
