From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Cs1RU-0002f0-MA for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:15:24 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Cs1RL-0002cX-7R for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:15:16 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Cs1RD-0002YX-FP for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:15:09 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Cs1RC-0002Xl-CS for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:15:06 -0500 Received: from [212.43.237.68] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cs1Cq-0007ey-PF for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:00:16 -0500 Received: from ASSP-nospam (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40AADF8DE7E5 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:00:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost) by ASSP-nospam ; 21 Jan 05 16:00:16 -0000 From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:00:37 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <1D080FCA-64FE-11D9-B21C-000A95A0560C@penguinppc.org> <87y8enezue.fsf@marco.marco-g.com> <23A561F0-6BBA-11D9-B02D-000A95A0560C@penguinppc.org> In-Reply-To: <23A561F0-6BBA-11D9-B02D-000A95A0560C@penguinppc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200501211700.37394.okuji@enbug.org> Subject: Re: device syntax again 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, 21 Jan 2005 16:15:17 -0000 On Friday 21 January 2005 15:38, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > Yes, we're impacting users because doing the right thing would be > difficult. I disagree strongly. How do you define what is the right thing? For me, the right thing is consistency in GRUB. I think you stick to your firmware too much. You must consider the balance. How much does it impact users in reality? If you cannot do something because of this, I would agree with you. But, in this case, you just need one more step and it must be rarely required. > I agree that a non-trivial amount of code would need to change, but > there is perhaps a simpler alternative: choosing a separator > character for each architecture that is guaranteed by spec to be ok. > For example: #define GRUB_DEVICE_SEPARATOR ',' // x86 > #define GRUB_DEVICE_SEPARATOR '|' // Open Firmware Don't do it, please. Hollis, I feel that your way of thinking is "GRUB should be a convenient way to wrap Open Firmware". However, I have heard that many people want to see GRUB in other architectures and their way of thinking is "I want the same features and the same interface on my architecture". Basically, they are interested in the user-visible part of GRUB. If GRUB provides a different interface for each architecture, what would they feel? I'm sure that they would be surprised and complain. Okuji