From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1FZoC9-0001E2-IJ for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:05:05 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZoC7-0001DQ-Fv for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:05:03 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZoC5-0001Cp-EB for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:05:03 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZoC5-0001Cj-8n for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:05:01 -0400 Received: from [212.85.152.101] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FZoFR-0002UF-4l for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:08:29 -0400 Received: from kotoba.oasis.nexedi.com (kotoba.oasis.nexedi.com [212.85.152.101]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3003F3C8BB429 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:25:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [??1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1993C8BB428 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:25:35 +0200 (CEST) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:04:56 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <877j58boc2.fsf@xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <877j58boc2.fsf@xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604291404.57583.okuji@enbug.org> X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.037229, version=0.17.2 Subject: Re: Include 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, 29 Apr 2006 12:05:03 -0000 On Saturday 29 April 2006 13:42, Marco Gerards wrote: > A lot of people have been asking about an include > command/source/. command. But I am wondering if it just can be the > same as configfile, except for the cls. No. It should be the same as "." in BASH. The command "configfile" is more similar to invoking another shell in BASH (i.e. it creates another context, while "." is executed in the current context). In this sense, it might be better to remove configfile and simply allow the user to "execute" a config file (like "grub> (hd0,1)/boot/grub/another.cfg"). Okuji