On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:56:54PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> Robert, I saw that you comitted the fix in SVN with a version 0.97-52 but
> unstable/lenny has 0.97-47, and the changes in between are probably
> unwanted by release managers. Will you prepare a 0.97-47lenny1 version
> for unstab
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 29.10.2008, 14:30 +0100 schrieb Robert Millan:
>
> > I don't like that it is an ugly hack, in the sense that we're trying to stop
> > reliing on this sort of heuristic, and this only works around the problem.
> > Our long-term fix is to
Am Mittwoch, den 29.10.2008, 14:30 +0100 schrieb Robert Millan:
> I don't like that it is an ugly hack, in the sense that we're trying to stop
> reliing on this sort of heuristic, and this only works around the problem.
> Our long-term fix is to use only reliable identifiers like UUIDs.
>
> But s
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 09:22:18AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> Ok, if you really don't want to replace the device.map on the fly,
> let me propose yet another solution: in case of grub-probe failure, we
> regenerate a device.map in a temporary file and we try grub-probe again
> but with --de
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Sorry but I don't understand how you concile the two sentences that you
> > gave:
> > - on one side you say that "-t drive" only fails when device.map is wrong
> > and you accept that we invite the user to regenerate it
>
> s/regenerate/check/g. Whe
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:13:30PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:27:29AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > >
> > > I have two concerns with this:
> > > - grub-probe can possibly fail in other circumstances and we will displ
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:27:29AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >
> > I have two concerns with this:
> > - grub-probe can possibly fail in other circumstances and we will display
> > a misleading error message in those cases
>
> grub-probe's messag
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:27:29AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> I have two concerns with this:
> - grub-probe can possibly fail in other circumstances and we will display
> a misleading error message in those cases
grub-probe's messages aren't always appropiate for grub legacy's update-gru
Tirsdag den 28. Oktober 2008 skrev Raphael Hertzog:
> - the installation will still fail and most users have no idea what
> device.map really is. If you go that route, you should at least give
> them the command-line to execute to regenerate the device.map
> But in the mean time for Grub 1, wo
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:45:40PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > Attached is now an ugly patch which would display the grub-probe error
> > "Check your device.map" if it fails.
> >
> > Else I had the idea to make an environment variable like
> > GRUB_P
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:45:40PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Attached is now an ugly patch which would display the grub-probe error
> "Check your device.map" if it fails.
>
> Else I had the idea to make an environment variable like
> GRUB_PROBE_HIDE_ERRORS=1 which would hide the output of
> gr
Attached is now an ugly patch which would display the grub-probe error
"Check your device.map" if it fails.
Else I had the idea to make an environment variable like
GRUB_PROBE_HIDE_ERRORS=1 which would hide the output of
grub_print_error() but then we would need to change grub-common and grub
pack
12 matches
Mail list logo
