On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:12:44AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> I do not believe this is an overkill. Do you want grub-probe to print
> "i-dont-check-my-arguments" (grub-probe --target=device --device
> i-dont-check-my-arguments) ?
> Even worse, if you select another target than 'device' and
Hi!
From: Marco Gerards
Thanks for this patch, however you didn't really describe the problem
you are solving. I am not sure if this patch replaces your patch.
This thread was initiated with a follow up to a mail Robert sent
off-list. So can you please describe what you are doing and why,
Fabian Greffrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi!
> Robert Millan schrieb:
>> If you want the former, feel free to send a patch to grub-devel. For the
>> latter, look at my questions and send some feedback.
>
> please find attached a patch that adds a new parameter '--device, -d'
> to grub-probe.
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:47:26PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Robert Millan schrieb:
> >Why is that a problem?
> >
>
> Because foobar is not a block device, but grub-probe claims that it will
> print a device if '--target=device' is given.
Uhm I'm not sure if that's a good thing or may b
Robert Millan schrieb:
Why is that a problem?
Because foobar is not a block device, but grub-probe claims that it will
print a device if '--target=device' is given.
I think this function could be called from the other part of this file which
performs similar checks (if this functionality
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 09:43:58AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> the given argument if it is a block device and returns NULL else. This
> was necessary, because else you could force grub-probe to print 'foobar'
> if run as 'grub-probe --target=device --device foobar'.
Why is that a problem?
Hi there,
Robert Millan schrieb:
If you want the former, feel free to send a patch to grub-devel. For the
latter, look at my questions and send some feedback.
please find attached a patch that adds a new parameter '--device, -d' to
grub-probe. If this parameter is set, grub-probe expects the
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 03:26:24PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Robert Millan schrieb:
> >Sorry, I got confused. The generic linux-device / grub-drive conversion
> >tool
> >is no problem. I think it's fine to add it.
> >
>
> Fine!
>
> >The problem is if you need grub-probe to work with a
Robert Millan schrieb:
Sorry, I got confused. The generic linux-device / grub-drive conversion tool
is no problem. I think it's fine to add it.
Fine!
The problem is if you need grub-probe to work with an input different than
a filesystem path.
I won't need grub-probe at all as soon
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:31:57AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Robert Millan schrieb:
> >Suggestions?
>
> For the time being I could duplicate the convert() function from
> Debian's grub-installer to convert the device names.
>
> However, I believe that there are plenty of cases in which yo
Fabian Greffrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Robert Millan schrieb:
>> Suggestions?
>
> For the time being I could duplicate the convert() function from
> Debian's grub-installer to convert the device names.
It could be nice so it could be tested on Debian while it's not
accepted upstream.
> H
Robert Millan schrieb:
Suggestions?
For the time being I could duplicate the convert() function from
Debian's grub-installer to convert the device names.
However, I believe that there are plenty of cases in which you could use
a generic device name conversion tool...
--
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:41:59AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> >
> >This implies that we'll have to support 6 different kinds of conversions
> >between path, drive and device, some of which might even be impossible.
> >
> >Besides, perhaps it'd be cleaner to split this conversion to a separate
This implies that we'll have to support 6 different kinds of conversions
between path, drive and device, some of which might even be impossible.
Besides, perhaps it'd be cleaner to split this conversion to a separate
tool, so that grub-probe only operates on devices, and the other tool
converts
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>
> We should stay with the '-t drive' option to print the GRUB drive. If no
> further option is given, the next item on the command line is expected
> to be a path - just like before.
> Then, another option, e.g. '-o', should be
Robert Millan schrieb:
Sure, we can fix grub-probe. This was already needed for something else
(but I forgot what ;-)).
Nevertheless it will be very very convenient to have this in grub-probe.
Can you propose a CLI by which grub-probe would be told to process devices
rather than mount poi
16 matches
Mail list logo
