Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Feb 15, 2005, at 3:31 PM, Marco Gerards wrote: >> Ok. But the file does not need to be blessed to boot from it. It's >> just used so the user can use: >> >> boot hd,0 >> >> instead of: >> >> boot hd,0:grubof >> >> To me the second sounds good enough. Or does that cause other >> problems? > > Remember that resetting the PRAM (a rare but not unusual action on > Macs) will revert to the stock firmware configuration, and if OS X is > the only blessed OS, the user will find themselves unable to boot into > Linux without a decent understanding of Open Firmware. Blessing GRUB > would eliminate this problem*.
This is a good explanation of the problem. When we have documentation we should have a text like this in it. :) > * If OS X is on a lower partition number, the user will still boot > into OS X after a PRAM reset. However, if the firmware recognizes GRUB > as a valid kernel, there is a graphical "select boot device" interface > on newer machines that can be triggered by holding down the Option key > at startup. Ok. >>> Ok. I assume you want to test my patch and review it further, so I >>> will wait for more comments before committing it. >> >> Sure, I will test and review it on both of my PPC systems and review >> the patch. I hope you understand that it can take a while. :/ > > I hope I can talk you into taking a look soon, as this functionality > is essential if we want to actually *use* GRUB2. Ok. > It should be pretty easy to build and see what happens... :) (See my > patch from earlier today since current CVS doesn't build.) That's something I could do. :) >>>> I don't want to add a fancy parser yet. At the moment we just use a >>>> single argument. If more will be used, this code has to be changed. >>> >>> And in that case, the format of "bootargs" will have to change >>> too. It's never too early to think about backwards compatibility, >>> especially if people are thinking of packaging and distributing a >>> grub2.deb... :) >> >> Huh? Why would backward compatibility be broken? > > If a user installs GRUB now with this bootargs patch, then later if we > wish to add a debug option with "fancy parser" they will no longer be > able to boot, as the syntax will change. > > Now: "boot grubof hd0,6" > Later: "boot grubof prefix=hd0,6 debug=all" I do not like the prefix= syntax. What I want is: Now: "boot grubof (hd0,6)" Later: "boot grubof (hd0,6) --debug=all" > Users trying to boot with the old syntax will fail. In my case it will still work. :) Thanks, Marco _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel