Re: subversion repository structure

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:20:47 +0800 Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 23:02 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > > >> I don't agree on this. GRUB Legacy and GRUB 2 are developed fully > >> independent

Re: Idea: elimination of the normal mode (revised version)

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > First of all, we can still keep rescue and normal command. But instead > of depending on normal.mod, normal command depends on module arg, > which is an option parser. Also, these two type of commands are of the > same comman

Re: [PATCH] Loading windows in macbook

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:40 AM, Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Oh, actually a20 of macbook can be disabled with fast a

Re: subversion repository structure

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 23:02 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > >> I don't agree on this. GRUB Legacy and GRUB 2 are developed fully >> independently (if any). If we follow your way, the repository would look like >> this: >>

Re: subversion repository structure

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:52 AM, walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was quite confused when I checked out the new svn sources because I got > more code than I want or need. I want only the grub2 sources and not the > legacy grub, but I get them both anyway. > > For example: > > # ls -l ~/src/grub

Re: GRUB2 cannot mount correct NTFS-partition

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Oleg Strikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi! >> I get strange problem, using grub2-current (and last releases as well) >> - ntfs partition cannot be mounted due to incorrect MFT size. After >> gr

Re: GRUB2 cannot mount correct NTFS-partition

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Oleg Strikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > I get strange problem, using grub2-current (and last releases as well) > - ntfs partition cannot be mounted due to incorrect MFT size. After > grub_printf() debug i collect some data: > MFT_SIZE = 1968 (too big!) = cl

Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2

From: "JavierMartín" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:07 PM To: "The development of GRUB 2" Subject: Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2 OK, so this is what I get from your 3 posts, and my proposals for the driver future: * meta_bg is a deprecated feature and

Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2

El mié, 16-07-2008 a las 19:44 +0200, Felix Zielcke escribió: > > Oh well I should have used grep with -i > > meta_bg and META_BG does make a difference > > > > Anyway in release-notes I now found this: > > > > Add support for the an alternative block group descriptor layout which > > allows for on

Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2

Oh well I should have used grep with -i meta_bg and META_BG does make a difference Anyway in release-notes I now found this: Add support for the an alternative block group descriptor layout which allows for on-line resizing without needing to prepare the filesystem in advance. (This is the in

Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2

Oh well I should have used grep with -i meta_bg and META_BG does make a difference Anyway in release-notes I now found this: Add support for the an alternative block group descriptor layout which allows for on-line resizing without needing to prepare the filesystem in advance. (This is the inco

Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2

From: "JavierMartín" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 6:38 PM To: "The development of GRUB 2" Subject: Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2 Er... of course, the Linux extN implementation is the de-facto reference implementation. Some incompat features are only used in ne

Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2

El mié, 16-07-2008 a las 17:27 +0200, Felix Zielcke escribió: > From: "JavierMartín" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:09 PM > To: "The development of GRUB 2" > Subject: Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2 > > > I see the ext4 patch was checked in recently. Can the "fo

Re: Next release?

El mié, 16-07-2008 a las 12:17 -0400, Pavel Roskin escribió: > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 16:17 +0200, Javier Martín wrote: > > > Same for me: I have the BIOS set up to boot from the second hard drive, > > which then becomes (hd0) for GRUB through the BIOS (kinda like what my > > proposed drivemap modu

Re: Next release?

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 16:17 +0200, Javier Martín wrote: > Same for me: I have the BIOS set up to boot from the second hard drive, > which then becomes (hd0) for GRUB through the BIOS (kinda like what my > proposed drivemap module does), but my /boot partition was on the first > hard drive, which i

Re: Next release?

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 07:11 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: > > That's a very advanced setup. I actually cannot imagine why anyone > > would use different boot and root drives. Well, maybe the boot drive > > has no partitions that GRUB or the host OS can access? > > I have used machines that hav

Re: [PATCH] Drivemap module

El sáb, 05-07-2008 a las 13:04 +0200, Marco Gerards escribió: > Javier Martín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Just an updated version of the patch that adds support for device-like > > names instead of raw BIOS disk numbers, i.e. this is now supported: > > grub> drivemap (hd0) (hd1) > > In a

Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2

From: "JavierMartín" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:09 PM To: "The development of GRUB 2" Subject: Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2 I see the ext4 patch was checked in recently. Can the "forbid-incompat" patch with the new, specific error messages be committed to

Re: grub-probe detects ext4 wronly as ext2

I see the ext4 patch was checked in recently. Can the "forbid-incompat" patch with the new, specific error messages be committed too then? I'm submitting an updated version (i.e. against the current HEAD) because new lines were added. PS: does the ext4 patch add support for META_BG? it should be a

Re: GRUB2 cannot mount correct NTFS-partition

El mié, 16-07-2008 a las 14:07 +, Oleg Strikov escribió: > MFT_SIZE = 1968 (too big!) = cluster_per_mft (246) * spc (8) Was that written by GRUB? I could not find that string, nor parts of it, in the source code. WRT your problem, the closest match I could find is in fs/ntfs.c, around line 819:

Re: Next release?

El mié, 16-07-2008 a las 07:11 -0700, Colin D Bennett escribió: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:52:15 -0400 > Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 01:32 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > > > > If a boot drive is the same as a root drive, you are right. > > > Otherwise w

Re: Next release?

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:52:15 -0400 Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 01:32 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > > If a boot drive is the same as a root drive, you are right. > > Otherwise we need to do so. > > > > I think we have seen tons of examples with GRUB Legac

GRUB2 cannot mount correct NTFS-partition

Hi! I get strange problem, using grub2-current (and last releases as well) - ntfs partition cannot be mounted due to incorrect MFT size. After grub_printf() debug i collect some data: MFT_SIZE = 1968 (too big!) = cluster_per_mft (246) * spc (8) It looks like incorrect value :( but i get the same re