Re: multiboot2 vs. grub2 implementation

[Robert Millan]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:18:10PM +0800, Bean wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 8:14 PM, Robert Millan <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:23:44PM -0800, walt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 14:23 -0600, address@hidden wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 09:11:23AM -0800, walt wrote:
> > > > > address@hidden wrote:
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In the course of actually trying to use the MultibootDraft, I've
> > > > >> discovered
> > > > >> some places where the draft and the grub2 implementation differ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Jonathan,
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you using grub2/cvs with or without Bean's latest multiboot patch?
> > > >
> > > > I tend not to be aware of these things.  I'm using stock sources.
> > > >
> > > > > It still hasn't been committed, and I was about to ask about it 
> > > > > anyway.
> > > > > Without that patch, multiboot doesn't work.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm.
> > >
> > > Agreed :o)  Bean's patch had some whitespace corruption anyway, so here
> > > it is again, diffed against today's latest cvs grub2:
> >
> > If you just fixed whitespace, it is better if we just use patch -l or Bean
> > fixes it.  Otherwise it means more paperwork and legal stuff :-/
> >
> > Bean, where you going to commit that patch?
> 
> if the patch is ok, i can check it in.

Ok I just replied in the other thread.

-- 
Robert Millan

<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)