[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [BUG] GRUBs option parsing needs fixing

From: Andreas Vogel
Subject: Re: [BUG] GRUBs option parsing needs fixing
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 01:08:08 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2

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
It hurts that you think that I don't follow basic rules of communication
and cooperation.

>> 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. 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.

>> 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.

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.

I just hoped that I could help by identifying and investigating a
problem which I found out when working with GRUB. 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. This was not my intention and, believe it or
not, I just wanted to help.


reply via email to

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