From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MZdsC-0002U1-NO for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:49:40 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MZds9-0002SY-Ap for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:49:37 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MZds4-0002On-8e for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:49:36 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49506 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MZds3-0002OU-RH for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:49:31 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:15845) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MZds2-0001Uj-Tm for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:49:31 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 08 Aug 2009 00:49:29 -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 9D7A434C6D for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2009 01:02:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <20090807203948.GA16350@thorin> References: <20090807134614.GA8719@thorin> <20090807203948.GA16350@thorin> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:49:27 -0400 Message-Id: <1249706967.28996.2.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: Solving the grub-pe2elf problem 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: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 04:49:38 -0000 On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 22:39 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > I don't understand this. Why is a requirement to install GNU binutils > unreasonable, whereas a requirement to install objconv is not? Installing binutils can break the existing toolchain. Installing objconv should not. It's a good idea, as it would unify Apple and Cygwin support to some degree. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin