Robert Millan wrote:
> The creature has been seized:
>
> http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=grub
>
> I've left the bugs that apply to documentation since we'll probably reuse
> much of GRUB Legacy's and they will still apply.
>
> Finally the BTS is usable for keeping track of GRUB 2 stuff.
>
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:27:03PM +0200, Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > The creature has been seized:
> >
> > http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=grub
> >
> > I've left the bugs that apply to documentation since we'll probably reuse
> > much of GRUB Legacy's and they will
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:32:29AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So it seems nobody objected. What do we need to proceed?
>
> Prepare a file with authors names to be used during the conversion and
> a run to git-cvsimport using it? :-)
I mean in
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:02:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > - The website still prompts to send GRUB 2 queries to grub-devel,
> > > should we adjust that to make them use the BTS?
> >
> > Yes. And for grub legacy users (and version info what is grub legacy)
> > there should be note th
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:11:36PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch use customized linker script to build *.img and *.mod
> files, it should remove unnecessary sections created by the compiler.
>
>
> 2007-12-14 Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * conf/i386-pc.rmk (COMMON_LDFLAGS): Use
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:02:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
- The website still prompts to send GRUB 2 queries to grub-devel,
should we adjust that to make them use the BTS?
>>> Yes. And for grub legacy users (and version info what is grub legacy)
>>> there s
I'd like to move ata.mod initialisation away from its _init routine and into
a separate command. This way it isn't a nuissance when it gets included in
monolithic builds (such as the ones made by grub-mkrescue) and disables biosdisk
completely.
Does that sound fine?
--
Robert Millan
I know m
Robert Millan wrote:
I'd like to move ata.mod initialisation away from its _init routine and into
a separate command. This way it isn't a nuissance when it gets included in
monolithic builds (such as the ones made by grub-mkrescue) and disables biosdisk
completely.
Does that sound fine?
Y
Robert Millan wrote:
> I'd like to move ata.mod initialisation away from its _init routine and into
> a separate command. This way it isn't a nuissance when it gets included in
> monolithic builds (such as the ones made by grub-mkrescue) and disables
> biosdisk
> completely.
>
> Does that sound
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 06:06:42PM +0200, Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > I'd like to move ata.mod initialisation away from its _init routine and into
> > a separate command. This way it isn't a nuissance when it gets included in
> > monolithic builds (such as the ones made by
Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:11:36PM +0800, Bean wrote:
Hi,
This patch use customized linker script to build *.img and *.mod
files, it should remove unnecessary sections created by the compiler.
2007-12-14 Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* conf/i3
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 01:22:44PM +0200, Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 12:02:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> - The website still prompts to send GRUB 2 queries to grub-devel,
> should we adjust that to make them use the BTS?
> >>> Yes.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 11:29:31AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
> I agree that we should avoid naming highly target-specific linker
> scripts in a generic way. "i386-pc.ld" might be a better name.
or i386/pc/ld (more consistent with the rest of grub)
--
Robert Millan
I know my rights; I wa
Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:32:29AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So it seems nobody objected. What do we need to proceed?
Prepare a file with authors names to be used during the conversion and
a run to git
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:14:30PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> No, the reaction to from Okuji was that if we have a bugtracker, it
> needs to be available. So if one of us sets up a bugtracker, we have
> no guarantee about availability. With savannah we have this.
Well, Savannah isn't free of
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 11:29:31AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
I agree that we should avoid naming highly target-specific linker
scripts in a generic way. "i386-pc.ld" might be a better name.
or i386/pc/ld (more consistent with the rest of grub)
or "i386/pc/
by http://cross-lfs.org/view/svn/x86_64-64/boot/building-a-bootloader.html :
On x86 and x86_64 (multilib) architectures, the preferred bootloader is GRUB. Unfortunately, GRUB doesn't work on x86_64 Pure64 - the stage2 files can be correctly built as 32-bit, but the grub shell is a 64-bit program,
On Saturday 15 December 2007 11:54, Robert Millan wrote:
> So it seems nobody objected. What do we need to proceed?
I do object. Personally, I believe that git is inferior to other modern
version control systems, thus I don't want to move. If we do, I prefer to go
with something better.
Okuji
On Sunday 16 December 2007 11:27, Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote:
> grub-help@ or grub-users@ would be more fit for user discussions. Are
> there any GNU "standards" for these? And perhaps require to switch to
> subscribe only lists.
This might be the third time to say this, but...
help-grub is already
On Sunday 16 December 2007 12:02, Robert Millan wrote:
> Another question is, how will we do context reply for patches? The BTS
> doesn't seem to easily allow this. Maybe we could followup on our replies
> via bug-grub ? But a problem with that is that it'll be hard to see the
> full context of
20 matches
Mail list logo
