From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1LpmgI-0001w2-3a for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:55:50 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LpmgG-0001vx-2B for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:55:48 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LpmgB-0001vW-NM for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:55:47 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60444 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LpmgB-0001vT-FV for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:55:43 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:29325) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LpmgB-0002PJ-2Q for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:55:43 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2009 12:55:41 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.22] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by smtprelay2.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8451034C6D for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:56:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <49D621C5.10702@gmail.com> References: <49D4B4FE.2020806@gmail.com> <49D4D023.7080902@gmail.com> <1238687734.3375.4.camel@localhost> <49D501BD.4040903@gmail.com> <49D621C5.10702@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:55:40 -0400 Message-Id: <1238777740.4924.52.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 (2.24.5-1.fc10) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [BUGFIX] 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: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:55:48 -0000 On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 16:48 +0200, phcoder wrote: > rgrep revealed no use for the second kernel_elf_HEADERS, so I propose to > remove it altogether > Is everybody comfortable with this patch? If I hear no oppositions in > couple of days I'll commit it. No objections. By the way, the same problems exists in sparc64-ieee1275.rmk Please change "suplicate" to "extraneous" in ChangeLog. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin