On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 23:09 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:04:29 -0400
> Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +util/elf/grub-mkimage.c_DEPENDENCIES = Makefile
> Sounds good to me!
Committed.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
___
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 04:14 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> I took a look at lzma 4.32.6. All code in liblzmadec is licensed with LGPL
> 2.1
> or any later version. So where is the problem?
Indeed, the "any later version" provision is there. It wasn't mentioned
in the original discussion.
On Thursday 19 June 2008 01:56:52 Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 00:15 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > Which implementation of LZMA do you refer to? I think LZMA SDK is
> > > available under LGPL, and most of LZMA Utils is also under LGPL. So
> > > there should be no problem.
> >
> >
On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 00:15 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Which implementation of LZMA do you refer to? I think LZMA SDK is available
> > under LGPL, and most of LZMA Utils is also under LGPL. So there should be
> > no
> > problem.
>
> I expected that LGPL 2.1 wouldn't be compatible with GPL
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 07:59:22PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 June 2008 08:27:09 Bean wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 4:32 AM, David Holloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I've just edumacated myself about how the platforms are defined.
> > >
> > > Let me get this stra
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 02:02:17PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 19:46 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 03:31:54PM -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote:
> > > I'm all for warning-free code, but if we try to
> > > use -Werror, the code won't even begin to compile
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 07:52:26PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 June 2008 14:54:23 Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 02:33:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 02:22:15PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > A problem I see here is that LZ
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 19:46 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 03:31:54PM -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote:
> > I'm all for warning-free code, but if we try to
> > use -Werror, the code won't even begin to compile in the current state.
>
> Of course, I wasn't proposing to add -Werro
On Wednesday 18 June 2008 08:27:09 Bean wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 4:32 AM, David Holloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've just edumacated myself about how the platforms are defined.
> >
> > Let me get this straight, the efi platform does not yet support loading a
> > multiboot kernel?
>
On Wednesday 18 June 2008 06:09:10 Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 10:22 +0800, y.volta wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just wondering, can grub2 support module coded with c++? Let's
> > suppose we are trying to apply the fancy menu. ;-)
>
> I think it can be done, but you'll need to disab
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 14:48:52 Marco Gerards wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems svn is available at savannah:
> >
> > https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=5340
> >
> > any plan to switch ?
>
> This seems like a good idea to me. I put Okuji on the Cc, in c
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 17:54:27 Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 23:02 +0800, Bean wrote:
> > I'm not against other compression algorithm, but lzma seems to be the
> > best, for example, for the previous c2.img:
> >
> > bzip2 c2.img && du -b c2.img.bz2
> > 29247 c2.img.bz2
> >
> > gzi
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 14:54:23 Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 02:33:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 02:22:15PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > A problem I see here is that LZMA is licensed under GPLv2-only, so it'd
> > > probably take a rewrite of th
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 03:31:54PM -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote:
> I'm all for warning-free code, but if we try to
> use -Werror, the code won't even begin to compile in the current state.
Of course, I wasn't proposing to add -Werror in the current state and just
throw the hot potato into everyone
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:22:43AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> I would not consider this "hiding information". The information you see
> (CFLAGS for example) don't really change across the lines and there's
> always the chance to say V=1 to see all the compiler lines. The
> opposite: The curren
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 01:32:57PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> if it's not too much work to maintain multiple decompression algorithms,
> maybe we can have grub-install pick the weakest compression that still
> shrinks the image enough to fit? Then only "complicated" setups will
> need LZMA's
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 02:55:44PM +0800, Bean wrote:
>
> You can try Robert's case:
>
> grub-mkimage -d . -o core.img pc ext2 lvm raid
If you're into benchmarking, I'd suggest trying all permutations of
"biosdisk (pc|gpt) (ext2|fat|reiserfs|xfs) lvm raid".
(notice biosdisk too, I forgot to add
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:42:45PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> No comment on this? I can't assure you it's 100% bug-free, but I know it
> fixes existing problems, and I think it's the right way to do it.
>
> If I don't hear any objection, I'll check it in tomorrow.
In it went :-)
--
Rober
if it's not too much work to maintain multiple decompression algorithms,
maybe we can have grub-install pick the weakest compression that still
shrinks the image enough to fit? Then only "complicated" setups will
need LZMA's memory excesses. (Might not be worth the effort though.)
-Isaac
_
El mié, 18-06-2008 a las 21:12 +0800, Bean escribió:
> If you rerun the test using the above modules, you will notice that
> besides lzma, others are close to the upper limit.
Test rerun:
Modules cat'ed together: kernel.img biosdisk pc ext2 fshelp lvm raid
Uncompressed file size: 49644 bytes
grub-m
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We also need to consider how close it's to the upper limit, 32256,
> which is the available free space in the mbr. To access partition with
> lvm and raid enabled, we need to use:
>
> biosdisk pc ext2 fshelp lvm raid
>
> If
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Javier Martín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El mar, 17-06-2008 a las 23:49 -0400, Pavel Roskin escribió:
>> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 05:14 +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
>>
>> > ORIGINAL FILE: /boot/grub/core.img (28449 bytes in Ubuntu Hardy default)
>>
>> That's an alread
El mar, 17-06-2008 a las 23:49 -0400, Pavel Roskin escribió:
> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 05:14 +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
>
> > ORIGINAL FILE: /boot/grub/core.img (28449 bytes in Ubuntu Hardy default)
>
> That's an already compressed file! Please see my posts in the thread.
> We should be testing c
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 14:55 +0800, Bean wrote:
>
>> You can try Robert's case:
>>
>> grub-mkimage -d . -o core.img pc ext2 lvm raid
>
> 50764 image
> 35090 image.lzo
> 27308 image.gz
> 27012 image.bz2
> 24470 image.lzma
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I run string on the image to be compressed, I see all function names,
> such as grub_biosdisk_get_diskinfo_int13_extensions. I don't see why we
> need function names there. Function names starting with "grub_" take
> 45
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 14:55 +0800, Bean wrote:
> You can try Robert's case:
>
> grub-mkimage -d . -o core.img pc ext2 lvm raid
50764 image
35090 image.lzo
27308 image.gz
27012 image.bz2
24470 image.lzma
> The uncompressed part need to be added as well, which is 1280 byte.
It's actually go
2008/6/18 Andrei E. Warkentin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, the mbi struct could have had a firmware type and firmware context
> pointer defined or something of the sort. This would also play nice with
> Multiboot on OF environments, without resorting to ugly hacks like always
> passing the OF entry
27 matches
Mail list logo
