Hello,
Last week I started working on my GSoC project for GRUB2: CD-ROM boot
support. I wanted to make sure I understand what we want to support in
GRUB2.
Do we want to be able to boot the computer from GRUB2 installed on a
medium (whatever it may be), then be able to boot from a CD (in
whateve
"Alex Roman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Alex,
[...]
> Do we want to be able to boot the computer from GRUB2 installed on a
> medium (whatever it may be), then be able to boot from a CD (in
> whatever mode - emulation or no emulation)?
Yes.
> Do we also want to be able to boot the computer
adrian15 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached you will find the patch adding test -e support for grub2.
>
> This is my first patch. I have compiled it without no errors.
Urgh... I thought/hoped I told you I had a test.c rewrite sitting on
my harddisk? Or did I tell Robert to poke me until next
adrian15 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please put a comment on each function saying what the function does,
> what sorts of arguments it gets, and what the possible values of
> arguments mean and are used for.
>
> Is it ok that the search.c and test.c (commands/ folder) do not have any
> of these
adrian15 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> GRUB_MOD_INIT(test)
>>> {
>>> (void)mod;/* To stop warning. */
>>> grub_register_command ("[", grub_cmd_test, GRUB_COMMAND_FLAG_CMDLINE,
>>> "[ EXPRESSION ]", "Evaluate an expression", 0);
>>> grub_register
How is it that util/biosdisk.c makes effort to avoid including Linux headers
and defines Linux ioctl macros on its own?
This adds an extra maintainance burden, so I guess there must be a reason to do
it, but can't think of one..
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this ad
Yoshinori K. Okuji schrieb:
Also, without grub-emu, how do you plan to debug GRUB?
I'd have some questions relating to that to improve the patch, if possible.
But first, please note that grub-emu currently can't work because argp.h
and its features aren't provided on Solaris, so I can't test th
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:59:30PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> How is it that util/biosdisk.c makes effort to avoid including Linux headers
> and defines Linux ioctl macros on its own?
>
> This adds an extra maintainance burden, so I guess there must be a reason to
> do
> it, but can't think
I have an idea that I am not able to implement in bash because I have
no time. It consists about an xml file that has all the arguments of a
command and how they should be (a file, a device, an string), if an
argument is compulsory or not, if two arguments are incompatible.
This xm
Dear grub2 developers, here there are some questions about grub2 that I
have that would have generated too many little emails.
1)lst files on a grub2 floppy
==
As I told you in another email, in order to build my grub2 floppy I did
a soft link
Comes from grub2 miscelanea questions (1/2)
14) help linux
=
Usage: linux FILE [ARGS...]
Load a linux kernel.
I think that a message telling the user that the ARGS are arguments for
the linux kernel instead of arguments for the grub's linux command would
be a good idea.
15) l
At Mon, 4 Jun 2007 18:59:30 +0200,
Robert Millan wrote:
>
>
> How is it that util/biosdisk.c makes effort to avoid including Linux headers
> and defines Linux ioctl macros on its own?
>
> This adds an extra maintainance burden, so I guess there must be a reason to
> do
> it, but can't think of
At Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:10:53 +0200,
Marco Gerards wrote:
>
> "Alex Roman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Personally, I think both are important to support, but I want to see
> > what the majority of developers and users think we should support.
>
> Just focus on one thing first. I think boot
On 04/06/07, Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:10:53 +0200,
Marco Gerards wrote:
>
> "Alex Roman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Personally, I think both are important to support, but I want to see
> > what the majority of developers and users think we should sup
A pair of things I found when debugging powerpc issues. Let me know what
you think (context comment follows).
--
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.
diff -ur grub2-1.95+200
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:00:21PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> - struct grub_pc_partition *pcdata = 0;
> + struct grub_pc_partition *pcdata = NULL;
>
>[...]
>
> - char *drive_name = 0;
> + char *drive_name = NULL;
I generaly find that NULL makes it clearer for pointers, do you have a
At Mon, 4 Jun 2007 21:03:11 +0200,
Robert Millan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:00:21PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > - struct grub_pc_partition *pcdata = 0;
> > + struct grub_pc_partition *pcdata = NULL;
> >
> >[...]
> >
> > - char *drive_name = 0;
> > + char *drive_name = NULL;
At Sun, 3 Jun 2007 23:37:25 +0200,
Robert Millan wrote:
> Here's another report with issues about LVM. I notice the device name is
> different than previous ones (note: device.map only has /dev/sda).
The problem seems to be that grub-install is probing for things
outside of /boot. GRUB shouldn't
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:11:30PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> At Sun, 3 Jun 2007 23:37:25 +0200,
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > Here's another report with issues about LVM. I notice the device name is
> > different than previous ones (note: device.map only has /dev/sda).
>
> The problem seems to
At Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:30:12 +0200,
Robert Millan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:11:30PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > At Sun, 3 Jun 2007 23:37:25 +0200,
> > Robert Millan wrote:
> > > Here's another report with issues about LVM. I notice the device name is
> > > different than previous
20 matches
Mail list logo
