[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: grub-install hidden options weirdness
From: |
Phillip Susi |
Subject: |
Re: grub-install hidden options weirdness |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:44:28 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 6/25/2014 1:33 PM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> This could be considered as endorsement to continue to use it ...
>
No, saying "dont' use this because it is depreciated" is exactly the
opposite endorsing its continued use.
>> 2) It seems that --root-directory has been overloaded to specify
>> the efi system directory. This seems like it was the wrong thing
>> to do and again, is totally undocumented.
>
>
> We already have --efi-directory. Why would you want to endorse
> this archaic usage?
I don't: I'm pointing out that this usage seems like it was an
undocumented mistake and it should be removed.
>> 3) It appears that --grub-setup used to allow you to specify an
>> alternate program to run instead of grub-setup. Now it seems to
>> check if its argument is "setup" and if so, has the same affect
>> as - --no-bootsector, and otherwise has no effect. This seems
>> completely wrong.
>
>
> This covers two common use cases known to me a) using it from
> within build directory with --grub=setup=./grub-setup and b) using
> it to disable actual installation with --grub-setup=/bin/true.
> Current code is compatible with them.
No, it is not. The current code ignores all values of --grub-setup
other than --grub-setup=setup.
>> 4) The similar arguments --grub-mkrelpath, --grub-probe, -
>> --grub-editenv, and --font are accepted and completely ignored.
>> If the option no longer works, it should be removed rather than
>> silently ignored. At least that way you don't have people using
>> it and wondering why it isn't working.
>
>
> Again - common use case is using just built grub without installing
> it. Do you have example of other non-trivial use cases?
Again, they are now completely ignored and have zero effect.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTqwp8AAoJEI5FoCIzSKrwhYsH/00j0500OF7ItHiwtFlLrQVz
qyKw+fbjEr3YpesLza9x9ov2T8Peh6Z1sQVFc6RqZwl5KtfF7Tf4lWJ2ktmpzW7q
qQMe/5njOd0Z0p68WOYPjz5kQU6Bsn6KqGgkSadDwISo+pLfeRazmGPmGKZTJ60B
PCDK4ksT8DU3rbn5446mqpAJuWOGTn+R5ijdkCxYVJG6aKild7vc1aEXOW7gkzFF
8R5xREB+RE//LY5eEtms2++xXej107hkS1Jv/bIaNBGuqrFQGjfjOPxmo0Ag9tP8
AM6pGZyxniGJgWg8S7kL6mGi13jK8j/JhQejpEp5DXEJf2osHUFP0lK0qkogjFM=
=9o/P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----