From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1KL2JG-0002ke-21 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:48:42 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KL2JE-0002kA-Fg for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:48:40 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KL2JC-0002jW-UP for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:48:40 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47121 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KL2JC-0002jS-Oy for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:48:38 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:45666) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KL2JC-0001jY-AE for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:48:38 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO relay.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.81]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2008 16:48:34 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.21] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by relay.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 669A6618F22 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:48:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <200807192216.23882.okuji@enbug.org> References: <1216040584.9995.52.camel@dv> <200807160132.18470.okuji@enbug.org> <20080719150624.GD23778@thorin> <200807192216.23882.okuji@enbug.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:48:33 -0400 Message-Id: <1216673313.11291.24.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: Next release? X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:48:40 -0000 On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 22:16 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > I am totally against ripping off device.map. Pavel's idea is too > idealistic, > and that regresses the flexibility. Actually, it could be said that having device.map regresses flexibility. Suppose I want to install GRUB on a flash drive that is seen as /dev/sdb. I need to add /dev/sdb to device.map even though I'm not going to see that flash drive again. I also need to check the options to ensure that everything is installed on the flash drive and nothing is installed elsewhere. Suppose that we don't have device.map. Then I don't need to add entries for temporary devices. Also, I won't be able to create a cross-drive configuration by accident, simple because it won't be allowed by default. If you think that device.map is beneficial for cross-device installs, then we can have an option to enable cross-device installs, that would also enable device.map. Single-drive installs don't need to make any assumptions about the BIOS numbers, and thus won't use device.map in any way. Actually, I think that even cross-device installs should rely on probing the relevant drives rather than on cached information. But we can discuss and implement it separately. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin