oops, I missed a lot in the last months. Having read
Okujisan's remarks about Version 1.0 I digged through
the archive to find his original posting (below) and
took a look at the TODO (current CVS) and extracted,
what is missing for 1.0 (also included below).
I could live with a Version 1.0
--- Timothy Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With respect to track_int13, tracking I/O ports isn't a reliable means of
binding BIOS devices to OS devices on modern hardware/firmware beacuse:
To avoid the same discussion, take a look at the archive of this mailing list.
I know the limitation
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:44:44PM +0100, Yoshinori Okuji wrote:
Please understand at least this point: GRUB would be GRUB even if support for
Linux is omitted, while GRUB would not be GRUB if support for Multiboot
disappears.
The reason why I may compromise without finishing Multiboot
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:00:52PM +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
The question is that we have not finished all the items in the file TODO. I
don't know how many people have took a look at the file seriously, but they are
still important issues.
The things in the TODO file are features not
--- Jason Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The things in the TODO file are features not bug fixes.
Note that GRUB is the standard Multiboot boot loader, so it is the most
important to support all the features of Multiboot. GRUB has always been saying
that it supports *all* the features of
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 04:18:25PM +0100, Yoshinori Okuji wrote:
--- Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm interested in your grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff patch and would like
to get it integrated in GRUB CVS.
That is not your task: One who decides if a feature should be added
I haven't looked at the TODO, but it gives me the impression that there are
too many people interested in having new features in GRUB to be in feature
freeze.
I believe this is detrimental for GRUB wide usage. For example, support
for new filesystems and, to some extent, for non-multiboot
--- Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a generic answer for these questions when applied to adding a new
filesystem?
Adding a new filesystem must be conservative as well.
Normally, I don't object to adding a new filesystem, but we must test it
thouroughly before adding it. The
--- Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to get your patch merged, both of you would have to sign copyright
assignment papers for the FSF.
Strictly speaking, it is also acceptable to disclaim copyrights, but
assignments are recommended.
If there is any serious reason why it is
