[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [BUG] GRUBs option parsing needs fixing

From: Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
Subject: Re: [BUG] GRUBs option parsing needs fixing
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 02:01:23 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0

On 11.03.2012 01:08, Andreas Vogel wrote:
> Am 10.03.2012 20:50, schrieb Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko:
>>>  What else can i do other than
>>> to beg for pardon?
>> If I have something against you, it's your unwillingness to compromise.
>> With others it's easy to find compromise but with your approach "all or
>> nothing" it makes the whole thing much more stressful for both of us
>> without changing the final outcome. That's about basic rules of
>> communication and cooperation,
> Sad to hear this, sad that you think about me like this and sad that
> you're becoming personal. I just tried to discuss about where I see
> problems.
Yes, I see why you consider the parsing to be a problem.
I believe that we can reach a logical compromise about possible actions.
But we have to both have open mind about the solution.
Actually you remind me of several people including myself, how I was
when I started.
> It hurts that you think that I don't follow basic rules of communication
> and cooperation.
That's the expression I've got. My position shifted somewhat but yours
remains unchanged. You look stubborn from this angle.
>>> C'mon, I'm talking about the GNU conventions/recommendations regarding
>>> argument parsing. I'm not talking about the GNU operating system, I
>>> thought I made it clear by even giving the link to that document.
>>> Without being able to parse '-xfoo' you will not be able to handle
>>> optional arguments in a consistent way. Because of this I disagree:
>>> "-xfoo" is necessary. You are right, "search -su UUID" demonstrates
>>> perfectly the weakness of the actual argument parsing. It's just buggy.
>> What is buggy and what isn't depends on what is considered correct. The
>> syntax "-s root" is widely used and is expected by many people. In fact
>> many people would consider it a bug if we don'r
> Regarding what i read from you until now, you always insisted on being
> compatible with GNUs ideas. And you are perfectly right doing so. I
> consider GNUs recommendation regarding argument handling to be correct
> and very well designed.
But in this case in addition to recommendation there is the reality and
reality of backward compatibility with last several years is important.
>  Imho it would be wise to follow them.
> Of course you are right with "-s root", even I was using it that way
> until now. The only problem is that the "-s" flag allows the argument to
> be optional. Without that we wouldn't have any problem.
Yes. And allowing "-s root" to continue is more important than to allow
-s with no argument.
Actually another possibility is to keep this or this + 2 other
occurencies to this behaviour while making all future uses to the GNU
behave as to ignore X in  --set X as possible argument.
>>> If nothing will be changed for short options, at least you need to
>>> mention in the manual that "search -s -u UUID" is OK but "search -u -s
>>> UUID" is NOT OK. And you need to mention that "search -su UUID" is OK
>>> but "search -us UUID" is NOT OK. I'm just mentioning the problems. If
>>> you or whoever decide that it's impossible to fix this (e.g. because
>>> of backward compatibility), that's another issue. Don't let's mix
>>> arguments for how smth should be and what the consequences will be. 
>> We're not in Platon's world of ideas. It's irrelevant how it should be.
>> At the end of the day there are only actions and consequences.
> In the text above I'm showing concrete examples why the argument
> handling in GRUB is inconsistent and therefore buggy. I cannot remember
> that you even confirmed that it's inconsistent.
> I wonder why you don't discuss the example I am giving. Am I right with
> what i wrote? It's a real question and I hoped that i would get some
> constructive feedback.
I do not see the examples you provided as inconsistent. They might be
unexpected but they are consistent.
> Maybe we are different in the way we're trying to solve issues: I'm
> trying to analyse a problem, see what is wrong and how it should be.
> Then I'm thinking about what can be done and what is acceptable and what
> are the consequences. Finally it's time for acting. So for me it's
> really strange that for you it's irrelevant how it should be.
This is just a way of thinking. The result is action followed by
consequences and this is what counts.
> I just hoped that I could help by identifying and investigating a
> problem which I found out when working with GRUB.
Yes, it is helpful and I'm grateful for it. But there is a limit as to
what can be improved without causing worse nightmare. Old bug is better
than two new ones.
>  I wanted to show the
> current situation, the problem with it and what would need to be changed
> in my opinion. I'm really sorry to be told now that I failed and that my
> discussion is not welcomed.
Discussion is welcomed. Just your messages seem to repeat the same
things over and over and this isn't productive. Be concise and just
write the new elements, not the whole story again every time.
>  This was not my intention and, believe it or
> not, I just wanted to help.
> Andreas

Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]