Re: [multiboot] command-line format

2010-01-20 Thread Grégoire Sutre
Hi Robert, On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 01:39:48PM -0600, richardvo...@gmail.com wrote: I think a bootloader with "universal" in its name should be doing everything possible to avoid this. If I want to multiboot between Linux, NetBSD, OpenSolaris, and OpenBSD, do I load my MBR with the BSD fork of

Re: [multiboot] command-line format

2010-01-19 Thread Robert Millan
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 01:39:48PM -0600, richardvo...@gmail.com wrote: > > I think a bootloader with "universal" in its name should be doing > everything possible to avoid this. If I want to multiboot between > Linux, NetBSD, OpenSolaris, and OpenBSD, do I load my MBR with the BSD > fork of GRUB

Re: [multiboot] command-line format

2010-01-17 Thread richardvo...@gmail.com
> Also, I firmly believe that we shouldn't be satisfied with flawed solutions > just because they're part of our legacy baggage.  We can do better than this > because Free Software is more flexible and more powerful.  For example, NetBSD > can distribute its own version of GRUB and patch it, and co

Re: [multiboot] command-line format

2010-01-17 Thread Robert Millan
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 07:02:16PM +0100, Grégoire Sutre wrote: > However, my first post in this thread was more about the multiboot > specification itself. In light of your explanations, I would re-phrase > my suggestion as follows: in the multiboot specification, require that > the first a

Re: [multiboot] command-line format

2010-01-17 Thread Grégoire Sutre
Hi Robert, Thanks for your detailed explanation, it was really helpful to me. I understand that for compatibility with some platforms, GRUB must provide a way to specify two potentially different file parameters: (a) the GRUB path to the booted file; this path does not appear in the multibo

Re: [multiboot] command-line format

2010-01-15 Thread Robert Millan
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:53:25PM +0100, Grégoire Sutre wrote: > > As mentioned in a previous thread, I had some problems getting multiboot > options recognized by the NetBSD kernel, and this was actually due to > the fact that GRUB Legacy implicitly passes the booted file as first > argumen

Re: [multiboot] command-line format

2010-01-14 Thread Grégoire Sutre
Seth Goldberg wrote: Linux doesn't use multiboot -- it has its own convention for passing information between the boot loader and the kernel. Ok. I was refering to Robert's email mentioning wraplinux: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2010-01/msg00046.html I glanced over the cod

Re: [multiboot] command-line format

2010-01-14 Thread Seth Goldberg
Quoting Grégoire Sutre, who wrote the following on Fri, 15 Jan 2010: Seth Goldberg wrote: Solaris uses the first argument (and it is essential to the kernel loading process actually). That's good to know, thanks. So the list of multiboot-compliant kernels that (are known to) assume a G

Re: [multiboot] command-line format

2010-01-14 Thread Grégoire Sutre
Seth Goldberg wrote: Solaris uses the first argument (and it is essential to the kernel loading process actually). That's good to know, thanks. So the list of multiboot-compliant kernels that (are known to) assume a GRUB Legacy command-line format becomes: Xen, Solaris, NetBSD. Does any

Re: [multiboot] command-line format

2010-01-14 Thread Seth Goldberg
Solaris uses the first argument (and it is essential to the kernel loading process actually). I've worked around the removal of the original arg0 string by passing the kernel name twice, ie: skern=/platform/i86pc/kernel/unix multiboot $skern $skern ... --S On Jan 14, 2010, at 8:5

[multiboot] command-line format

2010-01-14 Thread Grégoire Sutre
Hi, Vladimir just sent a patch regarding this issue, but I had this long (sorry!) email almost finished already, so here it is. And this might give more context for Vladimir's email. As mentioned in a previous thread, I had some problems getting multiboot options recognized by the NetBSD ke