Reindl Harald wrote:
> and why in the world needs th emenu to be hidden?
>
[snip, answering separately to the middle paragraph]
>
> the only goal you achive with all this stuff is people
> craing "woooh my system does not boot after kernel-update"
> without let them EASY know "hey you can always
Adam Williamson wrote:
> We provide upstream code in a unified set of repositories, tested to
> interact properly. Did I say that we're not supposed to patch code
> shipped by upstream? No. What I said - or rather, the belief my
> statement was based on, because this isn't exactly what I said - is
> Here's what our policies say:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
>
> "All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment
>
> All patches in Fedora spec files SHOULD have a comment above them
> about
> their upstr
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 23:29 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Apart from all the bullshit about cars, which part of "it's part of
> > upstream grub2" are you people not understanding? This is not our code.
> > This is how grub2-mkconfig work
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Apart from all the bullshit about cars, which part of "it's part of
> upstream grub2" are you people not understanding? This is not our code.
> This is how grub2-mkconfig works. We are not going to get into the game
> of patching bootloader
Am 04.01.2013 17:47, schrieb Adam Jackson:
> On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 01:26 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> i would love to also get rid of this useless submenu for
>> differenct kernel-versions and ALL the fancy stuff in GRUB
>> which is not needed for a clean system boot
>
> I look forward to y
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 01:26 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> i would love to also get rid of this useless submenu for
> differenct kernel-versions and ALL the fancy stuff in GRUB
> which is not needed for a clean system boot
I look forward to your patches.
- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists
On Jan 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2013-01-03 17:44 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed:
>
>> My recollection on actual hardware though for F16 and F17 is that I see a
>> GRUB
>> menu. At the moment I don't have hardware to test, it's all multi-boot.
>
> Maybe you, newAnaconda a
On 2013-01-03 17:44 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed:
Felix Miata wrote:
Maybe a virtual disk installation is somehow categorized as multiboot by the
F18 installer in configuring the Grub2 menu?
My recollection on actual hardware though for F16 and F17 is that I see a GRUB
menu. At the mo
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2013-01-03 16:51 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed:
>
>> On 2013-01-03 17:00 (GMT-0500), Mairin Duffy composed:
>
>
>>> It should be hidden for final releases, but not for testing and
>>> development releases. You may have upgraded from a beta
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 01:26 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 04.01.2013 01:21, schrieb drago01:
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Máirín Duffy
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu 03 Jan 2013 04:55:22 PM EST, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >>> Documentation says "The GRUB menu defaults to being hidden,
> >>> exce
On Jan 3, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Maybe a virtual disk installation is somehow categorized as multiboot by the
> F18 installer in configuring the Grub2 menu?
My recollection on actual hardware though for F16 and F17 is that I see a GRUB
menu. At the moment I don't have hardware
On Jan 3, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Pete Travis wrote:
> Since you folks are testing, would anyone mind filing a bug against the
> documentation?
>
I did, I was just trying to get a confirm/deny that this is intended and if
it's stable before changing documentation.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_
A simple short term solution might be to purge this statement from the
documentation for affected releases. If we should expect the splash only in
certain cases, of course the docs should state that expected behavior.
Since you folks are testing, would anyone mind filing a bug against the
document
Am 04.01.2013 01:21, schrieb drago01:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>> On Thu 03 Jan 2013 04:55:22 PM EST, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> Documentation says "The GRUB menu defaults to being hidden,
>>> except on dual-boot systems." but as far as I know this hasn't been > true
On 2013-01-03 16:51 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed:
On 2013-01-03 17:00 (GMT-0500), Mairin Duffy composed:
It should be hidden for final releases, but not for testing and
development releases. You may have upgraded from a beta or test
release, in which case your grub config file allowing it
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> On Thu 03 Jan 2013 04:55:22 PM EST, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Documentation says "The GRUB menu defaults to being hidden,
>> except on dual-boot systems." but as far as I know this hasn't been > true
>> since Fedora 16 when GRUB2 started being u
On Jan 3, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> On Thu 03 Jan 2013 04:55:22 PM EST, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Documentation says "The GRUB menu defaults to being hidden,
>> except on dual-boot systems." but as far as I know this hasn't been > true
>> since Fedora 16 when GRUB2 started being used
On Thu 03 Jan 2013 04:55:22 PM EST, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Documentation says "The GRUB menu defaults to being hidden,
> except on dual-boot systems." but as far as I know this hasn't been > true
> since Fedora 16 when GRUB2 started being used. Is there a
> plan to revert back to a hidden GRUB menu
19 matches
Mail list logo
