[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: normal vs. rescue mode commands

From: Tomas Ebenlendr
Subject: Re: normal vs. rescue mode commands
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:28:24 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6i

> Ok. As others seem to have no opinion, let's go in this way.
> Then, how about the naming convention? We need to have a standard way to 
> distinguish between normal mode loaders and rescue mode loaders by file 
> names. That is why I prefixed loaders with '_'. But I don't think an 
> underscore is so good.
> And, at the same time, I'd like to make all filenames fit into the 
> DOS-style (8.3 filenames), so that we don't need to use VFAT on FAT 
> filesystems. I think this is better, because Microsoft claims that they 
> have a software patent about the long filename extension... *sigh*
> What do you think?
> Okuji

Moreover we can use iso9660 level 1 naming standard (8.3, restricted alphabet).
This will let us boot from CD's without Rockridge/Joilet (Once I tried
to burn grub in Win and I failed because there was no rr).

here are some proposals

loader_r.mod for rescue mode 
loader_n.mod for normal mode


loader.mod for rescue mode
loader_n.mod for normal mode
and normal.mod will try to load '_n' variant of each loaded module (and
  normal mode insmod will do the same)

I like '_x' because it looks like 'x' variant of module.

PS.: Somebody told me, that M$ has patent about double click.
                                 Tomas 'ebi' Ebenlendr
                                 PF 2004.43877453957

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]