From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1EEY0A-00016C-O5 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:00:34 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EEY00-00011B-V8 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:00:25 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EEXzt-0000wc-3v for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:00:20 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EEXzq-0000oo-Py for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:00:14 -0400 Received: from [212.43.237.68] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EEXt9-0003VI-QW for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:53:20 -0400 Received: from ASSP-nospam (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5723DFF94DA3 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:52:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=ip6-localhost) by ASSP-nospam ; 11 Sep 05 19:52:49 -0000 From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:52:49 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <4219D62D.3000109@omniflux.com> <200509031908.30915.okuji@enbug.org> <431A46E8.3030308@omniflux.com> In-Reply-To: <431A46E8.3030308@omniflux.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509112152.49770.okuji@enbug.org> Subject: Re: x86 serial support 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: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:00:28 -0000 On Sunday 04 September 2005 02:59 am, Omniflux wrote: > Option 'a' is certainly the easiest, but how do I choose which terminals > to support? How do I test them? Having a static table (for all terminals) is clearly nonsense for tparm.c, since the purpose of this file is to interpret a terminfo file. If we embed binary code, there is no reason to have such interpretation code. > Option 'b', choosing which terminals and testing them is no longer my > problem, but this moves all the burden onto the user. I think you know this, but GRUB Legacy uses this way. For now, I think this is the best way, since most terminals are vt100-compatible, and the user does not have to do anything in this case. > Option 'c', problems as listed above. For me, this sounds overkill. Okuji