Re: [RFC] change grub_print_error to use stderr for the utils

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 05:47:03PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 17.08.2008, 17:34 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> > Hiding errors is a very bad practice.  And hiding them because the output
> > is ugly or because something is reporting false positives is even worse
> > IMHO.
> > 
> > This "out of disk" sounds like a false positive indeed.  It's a bug,
> > somewhere.  Something is handling errors in a place where this particular
> > error shouldn't be reported.  Maybe it should handle them somewhere else,
> > or maybe they should be handled selectively.
> 
> This is because of my nForce 4 Hardware RAID 0 (i.e. dmraid).
> Linux sees 2 disks (sda,sdb) and the partition table of the first is for
> the 2 disks combined.
> Both disk have only 80 GB but both combined have 160 GB.

If I understood correctly, nvidia's is a _software_ RAID solution which is
implemented in Linux, in BIOS and in Windows (via non-native drivers), and
is marketed as if it were hardware RAID.

Anyway, this doesn't answer the question on where is this "out of disk"
error issued, and why.

> Oh I should have said in my case.
> The BIOS presents GRUB only one (hd0) for the combined 2 disks.

Ah, I see.  Sounds like a very nasty situation.  We'll probably need special
logic at install time to sort this out?  At least, just to skip raid.mod
inclussion and use UUIDs for the rest.

Anyway, how is this related to the "out of disk" error?

> This doestn't look that good either ;)
> 
> [...]
> error: out of disk
> Installation finished. No error reported.

This "No error reported" seems to assume non-critical errors aren't
possible.  How about we remove that part of the message?

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."