> as Robert does seems like a waste of time for everyone. Is this ok
> > for you?
>
> Here is the IA64 port patch. I will send separately the FAT patch (optionnal)
> and I will mail my proposal to merge the both efi tools.
Hi!
I put your patch in /branches/ia64/ in our Baza
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 06:11:31PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
[...]
> > Fine for me.
>
> Will you send a new patch for this?
Yes, I still plan to update my patches. But I am currently out of time...
Tristan.
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@g
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:04:18PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 06:57:34AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > > > Robert suggested some changes. I also
Quoting Alexandre Boeglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Le mer 30 jan 2008 à 06:48:11 +0100, Tristan Gingold a écrit :
> > * loader/ia64/efi/linux_normal.c: New file.
> > * loader/ia64/efi/linux.c: New file.
>
> Hello,
>
> Wouldn't it be possible to merge these and the current loader/i386/efi/lin
Le mer 30 jan 2008 à 06:48:11 +0100, Tristan Gingold a écrit :
> * loader/ia64/efi/linux_normal.c: New file.
> * loader/ia64/efi/linux.c: New file.
Hello,
Wouldn't it be possible to merge these and the current loader/i386/efi/linux*
into one single loader/efi/linux.c and linux_normal.
Le mar 29 jan 2008 à 10:59:22 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
> > On EFI, the prefix is extracted from an EFI path, whose case may not match
> > the FAT entries.
>
> Can you be more specific about this? What do the specs say? We wrote
> /boot/grub ourselves via grub-install; is an EFI-compliant
in a new patch that addresses Robert's concerns +
> > >> Changelog entry, I will go over it ASAP :-). Giving the same comments
> > >> as Robert does seems like a waste of time for everyone. Is this ok
> > >> for you?
> > >
> > > Here is th
; Changelog entry, I will go over it ASAP :-). Giving the same comments
> >> as Robert does seems like a waste of time for everyone. Is this ok
> >> for you?
> >
> > Here is the IA64 port patch. I will send separately the FAT patch
> > (optionnal)
> > and I w
s seems like a waste of time for everyone. Is this ok
>> for you?
>
> Here is the IA64 port patch. I will send separately the FAT patch (optionnal)
> and I will mail my proposal to merge the both efi tools.
Is this patch still relevant, or if I reply
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:22:00PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Is gpt mandatory?
>
> Almost.
>
> > We can use gpt without efi; I wonder if we can also use
> > efi without gpt. If you can access the raw disk, any partition map (even no
> > partition map at all!) could be used, right?
>
Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 06:48:11AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> grub-probe is missing. Did you check if it works? Although, I think it
> should just move to common.rmk. I'll have a look at that.
Ok.
> > diff -ruNp -x '*~' -x CVS -x autom4te.ca
Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 06:57:34AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > > Robert suggested some changes. I also noticed in the discussion that
> > > you didn't follow common practise (like
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:07:01PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> grub-probe is missing. Did you check if it works? Although, I think it
> should just move to common.rmk. I'll have a look at that.
It's in common.rmk now. Please, can you check that update-grub works for
ia64-efi ?
--
Robert
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 06:48:11AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> +
> +# For grub-emu.
> +grub_emu_SOURCES = commands/boot.c commands/cat.c commands/cmp.c \
> + commands/configfile.c commands/help.c \
> + commands/terminal.c commands/ls.c commands/test.c
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 06:57:34AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > Robert suggested some changes. I also noticed in the discussion that
> > you didn't follow common practise (like an existing grub-mkimage
> > implementation). Pers
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 06:23:09AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 07:48:29PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> [...]
> > AFAIK, there's no standard specifiing FAT, only a few implementations that
> > act
> > de-facto as a "reference". Because of this, it is up to us to decide
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> Robert suggested some changes. I also noticed in the discussion that
> you didn't follow common practise (like an existing grub-mkimage
> implementation). Personally, as maintainer, I am against maintaining
> two different approache
> If you send in a new patch that addresses Robert's concerns +
> Changelog entry, I will go over it ASAP :-). Giving the same comments
> as Robert does seems like a waste of time for everyone. Is this ok
> for you?
Here is the patch that makes FAT fs case insensitive.
Tristan.
2008-01-28 Tris
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 07:48:29PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
[...]
> AFAIK, there's no standard specifiing FAT, only a few implementations that act
> de-facto as a "reference". Because of this, it is up to us to decide what is
> "standard" and what is just an OS-dependant oddity.
There are spef
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 05:38:20PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > > In this case, FAT is modified so fit the need of EFI. However, FAT is
> > > case insensitive. On windows C:\F
Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > In this case, FAT is modified so fit the need of EFI. However, FAT is
> > case insensitive. On windows C:\FOO.TXT is the same as c:\foo.txt.
> > Although I have troubles believing peop
Quoting Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Personally I do not like working around an issue in specific code (in
> this case specific to *-efi) in generic code. Usually, this doesn't
> improve shared code.
>
> In this case, FAT is modified so fit the need of EFI. However, FAT is
> case insensi
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> In this case, FAT is modified so fit the need of EFI. However, FAT is
> case insensitive. On windows C:\FOO.TXT is the same as c:\foo.txt.
> Although I have troubles believing people want to use a technically
> flawed non-free OS th
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:56:49PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:35:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > > Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > > > > > Wh
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:53:03PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > But mkfile generation itself can also happen when srcdir != objdir, can it?
>
> Right. I fail to understand your point: how did the patch break srcdir !=
> objdir ? I tested it with srcdir != objdir.
Ah, sorry I read the
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:49:31AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here is my new version of the patch. I think all the comments have been
> addressed.
> (There are still // comments in the .S files I copied from glibc. I suppose
> this is OK as the files come as-is from glibc).
Uhm loo
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:56:49PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:35:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > > Why is this needed? I'm not sure if it's good to ex
Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:35:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > Why is this needed? I'm not sure if it's good to exploit this
> > > "unreliability"
> > > > > feature that fat provides us ;-)
>
Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:10:21AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:49:31AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > > > -MAINTAINER_CLEANFILES = $(srcdir)/configure $(addprefix
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:35:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Why is this needed? I'm not sure if it's good to exploit this
> > "unreliability"
> > > > feature that fat provides us ;-)
> > >
> > > On EFI, the prefix is extracted from an EFI
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:31:21AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > util/i386/efi/grub-mkimage.c already generates PE, right? Why a different
> > way to handle this? Sound like it'd be more consistent to either use elf2pe
> > on both or share the same grub-mkimage. What do you think?
>
> Hav
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:10:21AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:49:31AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > > -MAINTAINER_CLEANFILES = $(srcdir)/configure $(addprefix
> > $(srcdir)/,$(MKFILES))
> > > +MAINTAINER_CLEANFI
Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Why is this needed? I'm not sure if it's good to exploit this
> "unreliability"
> > > feature that fat provides us ;-)
> >
> > On EFI, the prefix is extracted from an EFI path, whose case may not match
> > the FAT entries.
>
> Can you be more specif
Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:12:52AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > > Have you checked if this trick works on other ports? Maybe it'd be a
> good idea
> > > to merge this first.
> >
> > I don't really understand what do you mean by 'works on other por
Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:49:31AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > -MAINTAINER_CLEANFILES = $(srcdir)/configure $(addprefix
> $(srcdir)/,$(MKFILES))
> > +MAINTAINER_CLEANFILES = $(srcdir)/configure $(MKFILES)
> >
> > # The default target.
> > all: a
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:12:52AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > > --- grub2.orig/fs/fat.c 2007-08-02 20:40:36.0 +0200
> > > +++ grub2/fs/fat.c2008-01-28 16:29:57.0 +0100
> > > @@ -568,7 +568,7 @@ grub_fat_find_dir (grub_disk_t disk, str
> > > continue;
> >
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:12:52AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > Have you checked if this trick works on other ports? Maybe it'd be a good
> > idea
> > to merge this first.
>
> I don't really understand what do you mean by 'works on other ports'. It is
> designed to be an optionnal feature
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:49:31AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> -MAINTAINER_CLEANFILES = $(srcdir)/configure $(addprefix
> $(srcdir)/,$(MKFILES))
> +MAINTAINER_CLEANFILES = $(srcdir)/configure $(MKFILES)
>
> # The default target.
> all: all-local
>
> ### Include an arch-specific Makefile
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 05:55:04PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> Hi Tristan!
[...]
> > This port deviate from other grub ports in modules: I currently use a trick
> > to provide basic module support: they are prelinked during installation.
> > This makes the initial port easier (and possible ot
Hi Tristan!
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 05:09:05PM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here is the patch to add support for ia64. This is mostly new files
> (as well as new commands used to debug), and a few fixes in kern/efi/mm.c and
> fs/fat.c.
>
> Ia64 uses EFI so this port leverage on the
40 matches
Mail list logo
