From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1EWBmY-0005Ad-UO for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:55:27 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EWBmU-00056q-S8 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:55:23 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EWBmR-00053r-Do for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:55:20 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EWBmO-00052F-Ar for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:55:17 -0500 Received: from [212.85.152.101] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EWBmO-0006xS-Gq for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:55:16 -0500 Received: from ASSP-nospam (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6913C7B9870 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:57:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=ip6-localhost) by ASSP-nospam ; 30 Oct 05 11:57:13 -0000 From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:55:11 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <87u0f0t30k.fsf@student.han.nl> <200510300625.22134.okuji@enbug.org> <874q6zl4np.fsf@student.han.nl> In-Reply-To: <874q6zl4np.fsf@student.han.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510301255.11617.okuji@enbug.org> Subject: Re: Scripting support (PATCH) 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, 30 Oct 2005 11:55:25 -0000 On Sunday 30 October 2005 10:45 am, Marco Gerards wrote: > Right, I felt it hard to explain the direction I'd like to take on > this list. So I have implemented the core functionality because that > definitely has to be right. I don't know what direction you would like yet. It is hard to figure out all of your ideas from the implementation. I only know that it is differently implemented. > > - What are disadvantages in Vladimir's implementation? > > In my opinion it is not clean enough and does not integrate with GRUB > like I would like it to. And Vladimir's patch was way too hard to > maintain when I started working on this a week ago. Can you elaborate on those points? I still don't understand. > > - What are disadvantages in Marco's implementation? > > > > Fewer features are implemented. The kernel is bloated. > > What do you mean with the kernel is bloated? My patch moves a lot of > responsibility to commands. I would say it is less bloated. I mentioned this, because your parser is built into the kernel. This is unnecessary, as the rescue mode does not need fancy features. Okuji