[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: multiboot2 vs. grub2 implementation
From: |
Robert Millan |
Subject: |
Re: multiboot2 vs. grub2 implementation |
Date: |
Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:14:50 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:23:44PM -0800, walt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 14:23 -0600, address@hidden wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 09:11:23AM -0800, walt wrote:
> > > address@hidden wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> In the course of actually trying to use the MultibootDraft, I've
> > >> discovered
> > >> some places where the draft and the grub2 implementation differ...
> > >
> > > Hi Jonathan,
> > >
> > > Are you using grub2/cvs with or without Bean's latest multiboot patch?
> >
> > I tend not to be aware of these things. I'm using stock sources.
> >
> > > It still hasn't been committed, and I was about to ask about it anyway.
> > > Without that patch, multiboot doesn't work.
> >
> > Hmm.
>
> Agreed :o) Bean's patch had some whitespace corruption anyway, so here
> it is again, diffed against today's latest cvs grub2:
If you just fixed whitespace, it is better if we just use patch -l or Bean
fixes it. Otherwise it means more paperwork and legal stuff :-/
Bean, where you going to commit that patch?
--
Robert Millan
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)
Re: multiboot2 vs. grub2 implementation, Robert Millan, 2008/02/06