Re: [BUG] GRUBs option parsing needs fixing

["Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko" <phcoder@gmail.com>]

On 08.03.2012 16:03, Andreas Vogel wrote:
> Am 08.03.2012 15:32, schrieb Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko:
>> On 08.03.2012 15:15, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>>> On 08.03.2012 14:12, Andreas Vogel wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I start a new thread with this mail in order to have a thread on its
>>>> own
>>>> for this subject.
>>> Please don't CC Colin Watson (or me for that matter) for everything,
>>> it's bad tone.
> I just used Reply-All in my mail program, so please excuse me and I
> really hope that i didn't offend anyone, it was not by purpose.
Don't Reply or Reply-All to start a new thread. It messes up with threading.
>>>> In another thread we've already had some discussion about GRUBs option
>>>> parsing. I wanna summarize and describe here about the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Right now I see 2 problems with GRUBs argument parsing:
>>>>
>>>> 1) GRUBs argum      ent parsing is not POSIX compliant.
>>> We don't follow POSIX.
> But you were telling that you follow GNU, right? And regarding this
> subject GNU follows POSIX, qed.
>
We don't have to recreate whole GNU in GRUB either, we don't write an OS 
but a bootloader. In particular having -xfoo for isn't necessarry and 
moreover it will conflict with
search -su <UUID>
which is already used in the wild.
The case of --long-option optional argument can be changed especially 
taking into account migration from 1.98 but -xfoo is probably out of the 
question.
>


-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko