Re: Absence notice

[Pavel Roskin]

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 01:29 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:

> > It doesn't apply in loader/i386/pc/chainloader.c at all.
> Ok, I'll rediff.

Take your time.

Actually, the chainloader patch refers to "disk->parition" (misspelled
"partition"), so i doubt that it was even compile tested.

> > I think some parts could be split and applied separately.
> I'll look but afair it's not possible without breaking something

We'll see when we have a working patch.

> > I don't think
> > there are any objections against supporting nested partitions.
> Yes but I thought someone may have comments like "let's shave ths part
> from the kernel". The patch doesn't increase the core.img because
> increase of kernel size is compensated by pc.mod/bsdlabel.mod split.
> It the cases when bsdlabel.mod is used usually no modules like raid or
> lvm are used

Such objections may be raised once there is a patch that compiles.
Distributors must consider worst case scenarios.

> > But I
> > think it would be better to support letters for BSD partitions if it's
> > not too hard.
> It's done. THe patch treats 'a' and 1 completely alike

Good!

> >>  It changes sufficiently a
> >> lot to need a peer review and I need for clear network naming support
> >> (I plan to use a syntax like (ftp,192.168.1.1,21,user,pass)/grub.cfg )
> >
> > I think the networking is better split from GRUB as a separate project
> > under GPLv2.  It would be a huge effort to reimplement networking under
> > GPLv3.
> You wrong on this point because of http://www.sics.se/~adam/lwip/.
> It's a complete TCP/IP stack with loads of features suited for preboot
> environment and under 3-clause BSD license. I'll use it as a base. We
> can import hw drivers from gPXE (most are GPLv3+-compatible) and
> FreeBSD then

OK, good to know.

> >  And I don't see it as a priority.  The priority should be
> > supplanting GRUB1, yaboot and other bootloaders currently in use.
> >
> It's my priority. Solaris folks are willing to move to grub2 but are
> uncomfortable to lose netboot. (nested partitions and zfs were for
> them too) Additionaly I have a laptop without CD-ROM and want to push
> distributors to have completely network-based installation. For this a
> FTP or HTTP supportin grub would be very nice

I see.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin