On Sat, 2014-08-30 at 20:12 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 01:28:44AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > Is there a policy regarding using e.g. people/foo branches in the main > > grub.git or shall I go create myself a gitorious repo for WIP stuff? > > Given that it's basically me, I haven't really worried about policy, but > I generally think people/FOO/BAR type branches are a good idea. > > > I've attached a little mini series which addresses the issues you raised > > and switches to the proposed /boot/xen naming scheme. > > > > I've also added some new patches. > > This all LGTM. Please go ahead.
A fair bit of time has passed, we are now quite close to the freeze and this series adds a new binary package (hence NEW queue etc) so rather than committing I've pushed to the people/ijc/xen branch. Is it still OK to go ahead? > > The implementation is a bit > > unsatisfactory since grub-mkimage doesn't let you change only the output > > file without moving grubdir (AFAICT), so it generates and then moves it. > > Seems surprising. Can't you use the -o option? I don't think that does > anything to grubdir. Or failing that the default is to output the image > to stdout, so you could just redirect. > > Ah, but it looks like you're actually talking about grub-install here. > Yeah. Moving it after the fact isn't the end of the world, but armed > with a Xen-blessed spec I think we should fix grub-install upstream to > automatically DTRT here. I've posted such a patch upstream and it's in the above branch. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2014-10/msg00041.html Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org