Re: [patch] add setdefault X

2003-11-15 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Saturday 15 November 2003 22:19, Robert Millan wrote: > Ok. I'll revisit this later when I get time to. The idea is that > stage2 should only contain read-only code/data, right? It's just my idea. I really don't know what is the best way. If I know, I don't want discussion. ;) Okuji ___

Re: [patch] add setdefault X

2003-11-15 Thread Robert Millan
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:59:24PM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Thursday 13 November 2003 16:57, Robert Millan wrote: > > Since the default flag is already in stage2, do you think we could add the > > onceonly flag in stage2 temporarily, untill we move all the "default stuff" > > somewhere

Re: [patch] add setdefault X

2003-11-15 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Thursday 13 November 2003 16:57, Robert Millan wrote: > Since the default flag is already in stage2, do you think we could add the > onceonly flag in stage2 temporarily, untill we move all the "default stuff" > somewhere else? No. Once you implement it in the official tree, it means that people

Re: [patch] add setdefault X

2003-11-13 Thread Robert Millan
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:10:16AM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > I think I have said this before, but I don't like modifying installed stage2 > in this way. When I implemented it, I thought it was easy and good. But I was > wrong. That's because: > > * It requires changing the structure

Re: [patch] add setdefault X

2003-11-13 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Wednesday 12 November 2003 16:03, Robert Millan wrote: > As for the "run time" issue, what do you mean exactly? The default flag is > stored in stage2, so i guess it should be ok to store the onceonly one > there, too. I think I have said this before, but I don't like modifying installed stage2

Re: [patch] add setdefault X

2003-11-12 Thread Jim Cromie
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: On Thursday 06 November 2003 15:04, Robert Millan wrote: Including Jim's, I have a bunch of separate patches that implement that feature around. I was playing with them to see if any of them can be integrated. Asides copyright stuff, is that feature ok for CVS? Ba

Re: [patch] add setdefault X

2003-11-12 Thread Robert Millan
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:47:09PM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > Basically it is okay, as I understand there are some situations where boot > once is invaluable. Ok. > But I still hope more discussion. This kind of feature is not GRUB's way > actually -- GRUB is intended to manage thing

Re: [patch] add setdefault X

2003-11-12 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Thursday 06 November 2003 15:04, Robert Millan wrote: > Including Jim's, I have a bunch of separate patches that implement that > feature around. I was playing with them to see if any of them can be > integrated. Asides copyright stuff, is that feature ok for CVS? Basically it is okay, as I und

Re: [patch] add setdefault X

2003-11-08 Thread Robert Millan
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:48:52PM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Tuesday 04 November 2003 18:07, Jim Cromie wrote: > > This patch adds a new command to grub - setdefault. > > I think it is better to extend savedefault than to add a new command. Including Jim's, I have a bunch of separate

Re: [patch] add setdefault X

2003-11-06 Thread Yoshinori K. Okuji
On Tuesday 04 November 2003 18:07, Jim Cromie wrote: > This patch adds a new command to grub - setdefault. I think it is better to extend savedefault than to add a new command. Thanks, Okuji ___ Bug-grub mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.

[patch] add setdefault X

2003-11-04 Thread Jim Cromie
hi folks, This patch adds a new command to grub - setdefault. Its a close derivative of savedefault, the only difference is that it expects a numeric argument, where original uses an implicit argument. Its purpose is to support multi-kernel testing; a grub.conf can specify a sequence of differ