Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h

A more stupid ? Could you expand on this ? --  Jog

Re: Groff

> On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Aleksej Saushev wrote: > > Just in case you don't know, nearly any user has libxml2 and libxslt > installed anyway. None of my systems do.

Re: Groff

On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 08:05:16AM +0300, Aleksej Saushev wrote: > tlaro...@polynum.com writes: > >> [pledge for TeX---not TexLive] > > There's a lot better approach that beats all the above on all accounts. > > Import libxml2, libxslt, w3m that are all readily available, convert man > pages to

Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h

My point was just about the first step of the spec: look for the magic number 0x1BADB002. -- Sheda

Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h

Is there any chance you might include at least a little bit of context from the messages to which you are replying? These "naked" replies make it exceedingly difficult to follow the discussion. On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Sheda wrote: My point was just about the first step of the spec: look for the

Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:56 PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:09:49AM +0200, Sheda wrote: >> I confirm the amd64 port is not multiboot compliant, >> arch/amd64/amd64/locore.S lake the multiboot header you can see in its >> i386 counterpart: >> http://fxr.watson.org/f

Re: Groff

On 2015-06-04 09:43, Matt Thomas wrote: On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Aleksej Saushev wrote: Just in case you don't know, nearly any user has libxml2 and libxslt installed anyway. None of my systems do. I thought Aleksej was joking... The suggestion to get rid of groff because it needed C

Re: Groff

Johnny Billquist wrote: >On 2015-06-04 09:43, Matt Thomas wrote: >> >>> On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Aleksej Saushev wrote: >>> >>> Just in case you don't know, nearly any user has libxml2 and libxslt >>> installed anyway. >> >> None of my systems do. > >I thought Aleksej was joking... The sugge

Re: Groff

On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:44:25AM +0100, Robert Swindells wrote: > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > > >What happened to the original roff? I mean, groff is just a gnu > >replacement for roff. Maybe switch back to the original? > > The sources to all of DWB are available from AT&T: > >

Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h

On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:21:11PM +0200, deco33...@yandex.com wrote: > Convergence of efforts, cleanness of design, well understood by > everybody, tackles the a20 gate, and all the _very_ boring heritage > for us. All of that is very well understood and any kernel with least 15 years of x86 hist

Re: Groff

On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:30:20PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: > I thought Aleksej was joking... I was indeed wondering whether this was intentional trolling. :) > What happened to the original roff? I mean, groff is just a gnu replacement > for roff. Maybe switch back to the original? http:/

Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:12 PM, wrote: > "All of that is very well understood and any kernel with least 15 years > of x86 history knows how to do it" > > Ok. But booting from refit with multiple os is very convenient with, say, > grub. I get your point now. We agree. And using grub to boot NetB

Re: Groff

On 2015-06-04 12:44, Robert Swindells wrote: Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2015-06-04 09:43, Matt Thomas wrote: On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Aleksej Saushev wrote: Just in case you don't know, nearly any user has libxml2 and libxslt installed anyway. None of my systems do. I thought Aleks

Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h

"All of that is very well understood and any kernel with least 15 years of x86 history knows how to do it" Ok. But booting from refit with multiple os is very convenient with, say, grub. I get your point now. We agree. --  Jog

Re: Specification of BTINFO_CONSOLE value in bootinfo.h

"..would let the kernel know about the EFI system table" Absolutely, and with no hassle. --  Jog

Not Groff! Heirloom Doctools!

At Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:53:56 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: Subject: Re: Groff > > On 2015-06-04 12:44, Robert Swindells wrote: > > > > Johnny Billquist wrote: > > > > > What happened to the original roff? I mean, groff is just a gnu > > > replacement for roff. Maybe switch back to the origina