hi, On 3/19/20 6:41 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > In general, other distros avoid parsing and rewriting configs because > this should be the user's responsibility. :p > > The OP should consider that maybe such distros are more stable than Ubuntu?
I do. Where I directly control them, they're in use. It includes my own spins ... All use Grub. "Happily". ;-) Ubu's a not-infrequent reality nonetheless. > The OP's question is > > "Does the grub project consider /etc/default/grub as a shell-compatible > file which is sourced, to be the PUBLIC INTERFACE of this configuration > file?" yep. well restated. > The conclusion is simple enough: if you are going to automatically > rewrite this grub file, i'd thought that non-mangling of it would be a reasonable position; that, apparently, is not a mandate, iiuc. tbh, i'm not clear _why_ it's being written at all. i agree with the "this should be the user's responsibility", and would add "only the user's prerogative". but that's me. well, maybe not JUST me ... > you must do so using a parser engine that > implements POSIX shell and knows how to properly tokenize and rewrite > the full range of language features permitted by POSIX shell. > > Doing otherwise is YOLO, rash, buggy, and prone to breakage as > demonstrated by the OP's bug report. > > If a downstream project making use of grub, then goes ahead and calls > the use of backslash escapes for the very simple purpose of line > continuation across multiple lines (of all the things one might do in a > POSIX sh formatted configuration file, this is pretty tame), an issue of > "highly unusual abuse of POSIX shell semantics", this is pretty bad I > have to say. +1 > Just my $0.02 as a distro person (not a grub dev). heh. cheap at twice the price! ;-) thx. _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
