[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: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:18:05 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20120216 Icedove/8.0

On 08.03.2012 16:03, Andreas Vogel wrote:
Am 08.03.2012 15:32, schrieb Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko:
On 08.03.2012 15:15, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
On 08.03.2012 14:12, Andreas Vogel wrote:
Hi all,

I start a new thread with this mail in order to have a thread on its
for this subject.
Please don't CC Colin Watson (or me for that matter) for everything,
it's bad tone.
I just used Reply-All in my mail program, so please excuse me and I
really hope that i didn't offend anyone, it was not by purpose.
Don't Reply or Reply-All to start a new thread. It messes up with threading.
In another thread we've already had some discussion about GRUBs option
parsing. I wanna summarize and describe here about the issue.

Right now I see 2 problems with GRUBs argument parsing:

1) GRUBs argum      ent parsing is not POSIX compliant.
We don't follow POSIX.
But you were telling that you follow GNU, right? And regarding this
subject GNU follows POSIX, qed.

We don't have to recreate whole GNU in GRUB either, we don't write an OS but a bootloader. In particular having -xfoo for isn't necessarry and moreover it will conflict with
search -su <UUID>
which is already used in the wild.
The case of --long-option optional argument can be changed especially taking into account migration from 1.98 but -xfoo is probably out of the question.

Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko

reply via email to

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