Christian Franke wrote: > Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: >> Christian Franke wrote: >> >>> The Cywin path handling is broken since >>> make_system_path_relative_to_its_root() functionality was moved from >>> the lib script to misc.c. >>> >>> This patch should fix this. It reuses the Cygwin specific code from >>> getroot.c:grub_get_prefix() which apparently is a different >>> implementation of the same function. >>> >>> I would suggest to remove grub_get_prefix(), it is now only used in >>> grub-emu.c and sparc64/ieee1275/grub-setup.c. Not included in the >>> patch, should be done in a separate commit. >>> >>> >>> 2010-04-14 Christian Franke<fra...@computer.org> >>> >>> * util/grub-mkconfig_lib.in >>> (make_system_path_relative_to_its_root): >>> Remove broken Cygwin path conversion. >>> * util/misc.c: [__CYGWIN__] Add include and define. >>> [__CYGWIN__] (get_win32_path): Copy function from getroot.c, >>> modify >>> for Cygwin 1.7. >>> >> Please avoid duplicating code. Rather than that rename get_win32_path to >> grub_get_win32_path and remove static attribute >> > > Normally I would have done that but duplication was intentional in > this case: > The getroot.c:get_win32_path() can later be removed together with > grub_get_prefix(), see my suggestion above. The patch takes this into > account and adds new private misc.c:get_win32_path() and so avoids > unnecessary temporary changes to misc.h and getroot.c. > > The actual code duplication happened when > misc.c:make_system_path_relative_to_its_root() was added instead of > moving and reusing getroot.c:grub_get_prefix() :-) > Ok. Can you supply the dedup patch? (perhaps it should come before the fix). > > BTW: My last commits to grub codebase were before the move to bzr. > > As far as I understand "Bazaar workflow for GRUB" > (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2010-01/msg00175.html) > such changes should be 'bzr push'ed to e.g. '.../branches/feature-foo' > (e.g. '.../branches/cygwin-path' in this case) after review has finished. > Creating new branches doesn't need any approval at all. If the changes are approved for trunk they are applied or merged into trunk. experimental branch is a merge of sufficiently functional branches but which need more testing for testers convenience. Merging into it follows similar rules as comitting to trunk. > Is this workflow still valid or is there a more current document? >
-- Regards Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel