Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Hi,
the fresh development upload of xorriso-0.5.5
with timestamp 2010.04.22.160615 implements the
wish about --efi-boot :
I've tested xorriso version : 0.5.5 Version timestamp :
2010.04.22.221241 and it worked fine.
Vladimir Serbinenko wrote 17 Apr 2010:
The description is very similar to what i
implemented as --efi-boot.
But -no-emul-boot is implied by --efi-boot and
we are not in sync with the size of sectors:
The web page talks of 2048 where i use 512.
As far as El Torito 1.0 is concerned, the case is
clear: Figure 5 - Section Entry
Aleš Nesrsta wrote:
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
...
I discovered something. It looks like on Yeeloong the problem is caused
by the skipped step of initialising of timings and power management.
Quick and dirty fix:
...
Hello,
first of all sorry about delay - I
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Hi,
Ok, legacy :(. But --efi-boot would have no legacy.
--efi-boot will be all at your service. :))
The more definite your wishes, the more swift
their implementation.
Maybe we should call it --efi-grub-boot just
to make clear whom it cares for ?
Committed. One question:
+ .reserved_first_sector = 1,
This line claims that overwriting first sector of nilfs won't destroy any data
or metadata. Is it so?
Jiro SEKIBA wrote:
Hi,
Thank you very much for the comments!
I revised the patch to reflect the comments.
+{
+
Applied
Christian Franke wrote:
This fixes build of grub-emu on Cygwin, works also for
--enable-grub-emu-modules.
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
Applied.
Christian Franke wrote:
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
Christian Franke wrote:
The *_frame_info symbols are set undefined to force linkage of the
libgcc_s shared library or dll.
This can be prevented by TARGET_LDFLAGS=-static-libgcc. To build from
grub-1.98
