Hi,
Tests of GRUB on NetBSD (and FreeBSD) have raised several issues (most
of them reported on the list) regarding partition detection. However,
I have the feeling that some of these issues are not considered as real
issues since the test configuration is not supported by GRUB. This
surprises m
On 06/06/2010 08:02 PM, Grégoire Sutre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Tests of GRUB on NetBSD (and FreeBSD) have raised several issues (most
> of them reported on the list) regarding partition detection. However,
> I have the feeling that some of these issues are not considered as real
> issues since the test c
On 06/07/2010 10:46 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
There are two parts of this question:
1) Which partition schemes should GRUB be able to read modules and
payloads from ? It's platform-indepedent
Agreed.
and 2 conditions apply:
- Usage. There are OS which are able to boot
2010/6/10 Grégoire Sutre :
> On 06/07/2010 10:46 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>
>> There are two parts of this question:
>> 1) Which partition schemes should GRUB be able to read modules and
>> payloads from ? It's platform-indepedent
>
> Agreed.
>
>> and 2 conditions apply:
>>
On 06/07/2010 10:46 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
There are two parts of this question:
1) Which partition schemes should GRUB be able to read modules and
payloads from ? It's platform-indepedent and 2 conditions apply:
- Usage. There are OS which are able to boot from such OS
On 06/12/2010 06:32 PM, Grégoire Sutre wrote:
> On 06/07/2010 10:46 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>
>> There are two parts of this question:
>> 1) Which partition schemes should GRUB be able to read modules and
>> payloads from ? It's platform-indepedent and 2 conditions apply:
>
On 06/12/2010 07:26 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
Any "hybrid" cofiguration fails the criteria of non confusability.
I was assuming the new partition notation. The old notation is clearly
ambiguous when there are multiple partmaps, and AFAIR the new notation
was introduced
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 06:16:13PM +0200, Grégoire Sutre wrote:
> On 06/12/2010 07:26 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>> And currently grub isn't changed to new partition notation
>> completely. E.g. during startup prefix is calculated with old syntax
>> and confusing A+B with eith
> I can think of an alternative. We do still need grub_install_dos_part
> and grub_install_bsd_part for the multiboot trampoline, which is in
> assembly, so it's difficult to abandon them altogether. However,
> there's no reason we need to use them in make_install_device. How about
> we invent a
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 08:07:35AM -0500, richardvo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > I can think of an alternative. We do still need grub_install_dos_part
> > and grub_install_bsd_part for the multiboot trampoline, which is in
> > assembly, so it's difficult to abandon them altogether
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 02:25:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 08:07:35AM -0500, richardvo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Colin Watson wrote:
> > > I can think of an alternative. We do still need grub_install_dos_part
> > > and grub_install_bsd_part for the multiboot trampoline,
On 06/14/2010 05:02 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> 2010-06-14 Colin Watson
>
> Fix i386-pc prefix handling with nested partitions (Debian bug
> #585068).
>
> * kern/i386/pc/init.c (make_install_device): If the prefix starts
> with "(,", fill the boot drive in between those t
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 05:58:55PM +0200, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> On 06/14/2010 05:02 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
> > 2010-06-14 Colin Watson
> >
> > Fix i386-pc prefix handling with nested partitions (Debian bug
> > #585068).
> >
> > * kern/i386/pc/init.c (make_i
=== modified file 'kern/i386/pc/init.c'
--- kern/i386/pc/init.c 2010-05-21 18:08:48 +
+++ kern/i386/pc/init.c 2010-06-14 14:44:13 +
@@ -83,6 +83,14 @@ make_install_device (void)
grub_snprintf (ptr, sizeof (dev) - (ptr - dev), ")%s", grub_prefix);
grub_strcpy (grub_prefix, d
On 06/14/2010 18:43, Colin Watson wrote:
Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with that? I'm not familiar
with multiboot and need guidance.
A possible solution would be to use the multiboot-command line. AFAIK,
the boot_device field of the multiboot information structure is supposed
to
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:55:09AM -0700, Seth Goldberg wrote:
=== modified file 'kern/i386/pc/init.c'
--- kern/i386/pc/init.c2010-05-21 18:08:48 +
+++ kern/i386/pc/init.c2010-06-14 14:44:13 +
@@ -83,6 +83,14 @@ make_install_device (void)
grub_snprint
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 07:12:38PM +0200, Grégoire Sutre wrote:
> On 06/14/2010 18:43, Colin Watson wrote:
>> Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with that? I'm not familiar
>> with multiboot and need guidance.
>
> A possible solution would be to use the multiboot-command line. AFAIK,
> th
On 06/15/2010 01:21 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
A possible solution would be to use the multiboot-command line. AFAIK,
the boot_device field of the multiboot information structure is supposed
to pass this kind of partition information, but you cannot specify the
partmaps in this field, hence its in
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:07:42PM +0200, Grégoire Sutre wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 01:21 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
>>2) If multiboot_trampoline needs to change install_dos_part or
>> install_bsd_part based on the value of boot_device in the MBI, then
>> we know that the drive/partition p
Hi,
I made several tests, and the patch works fine with standard boot. When
multibooting core.img, the command-line is taken into account correctly.
However, if no multiboot command-line is given, the prefix is set as
before (old partition naming style).
This comes from the fact that the modifi
On 06/15/2010 01:21 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 07:12:38PM +0200, Grégoire Sutre wrote:
>
>> On 06/14/2010 18:43, Colin Watson wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with that? I'm not familiar
>>> with multiboot and need guidance.
>>>
>> A po
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 02:47:11AM +0200, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 01:21 PM, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 07:12:38PM +0200, Grégoire Sutre wrote:
> >> On 06/14/2010 18:43, Colin Watson wrote:
> >>> Do you have any suggestions on how to deal wi
22 matches
Mail list logo
