On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:19:30PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Monday 07 May 2007 22:06, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 09:23:08PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > > On Monday 07 May 2007 10:21, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > I think it would be reasonable to allow gru
"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 07 May 2007 22:06, Robert Millan wrote:
>> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 09:23:08PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
>> > On Monday 07 May 2007 10:21, Robert Millan wrote:
>> > > I think it would be reasonable to allow grub-probe to work witho
On Monday 07 May 2007 22:06, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 09:23:08PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > On Monday 07 May 2007 10:21, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > I think it would be reasonable to allow grub-probe to work without
> > > arguments. Any comments?
> >
> > Why do you th
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 09:23:08PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Monday 07 May 2007 10:21, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I think it would be reasonable to allow grub-probe to work without
> > arguments. Any comments?
>
> Why do you think so?
Because it's commonly invoked while debugging. The
On Monday 07 May 2007 10:21, Robert Millan wrote:
> I think it would be reasonable to allow grub-probe to work without
> arguments. Any comments?
Why do you think so? If you want to omit the argument, I think the Unix way is
to default to current dir.
Okuji
I think it would be reasonable to allow grub-probe to work without arguments.
Any comments?
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
Index: util/i386/pc/grub-probe.c
=
