Re: [BUG] GRUBs option parsing needs fixing

[Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko]

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