On 25 January 2016 at 03:05, adrian15 <adrian15...@gmail.com> wrote: > El 24/01/16 a las 16:51, Michal Suchanek escribió:
> What you are describing here is what it's actually implemented in my patch > (Well, actually the first patch version because the current one enforces > bootloader roles). Actually, no. Nowhere in the description is any bootloader designated primary or secondary or first or second. On purpose. > So what about primary and secondary terms? Or first or > second terms? Both are broken and confusing. > > These terms are used in two places: > * Internal variables and functions to handle bootloaders > * Information shown to the final user > > I'm most convinced to use the first and non-first notation. So that the old > code that referred to LB_BOOTLOADER can just refer to: LB_FIRST_BOOTLOADER. For what piece of code we have does it make sense to reference LB_FIRST_BOOTLOADER when not also referencing LB_SECOND_BOOTLOADER? Will that be extended to LB_THIRD_BOOTLOADER once x86 grows support for coreboot or l-b grows support for some other platform with many firmware variants? If you set bootloaders like LB_BOOTLOADERS="syslinux grub-efi" then you can just do for bootloader in $LB_BOOTLOADERS ; do some $bootloader foo after you check that you have at most two bootloaders and if you have more than one then only the latter one ends with -efi. Thanks Michal
