On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Robert Millan<r...@aybabtu.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 09:20:58PM -0700, Joe Auricchio wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 14:13, Robert Millan<r...@aybabtu.com> wrote: >> > >> > My bad... >> > >> > When I proposed adding a framework for building GRUB modules externally, I >> > was expecting it would end up being used. I had grub-extras in mind. >> > >> > But it became much simpler and straightforwarded to build grub-extras by >> > overlaiing it into GRUB tree and doing a one-line change in GRUB >> > Makefile.in. >> > >> > So I wonder if there's anyone reliing on this. I believe there isn't, and >> > I >> >> I'm using it. >> >> I am (my employer is) writing a set of modules to make grub do >> something it doesn't do yet. My employer prefers that I not discuss >> details at this time. >> >> I really like keeping the module code completely separate from the >> common grub code. If the external build stuff goes away, I can work >> around it, but it's not preferred. >> >> >> > noticed that it's a nuissance because it installs headers in /usr/include >> > which >> > may later be dragged in to a newer version of GRUB, causing breakage. >> >> I don't need headers in /usr/include. In fact I am happy with an -I >> flag pointing to the grub source dir. I vote we stop installing the >> headers. >> >> > So I admit having a bad idea and propose to undo it. Maintaining features >> > is >> > costly, we should only maintain features that are useful. >> >> I understand this and I agree completely. But it doesn't seem to cost >> us anything *right now* to keep build_env.mk and the 'idea' of >> external modules. Can we leave this code alone until a real problem >> appears? I don't think it's hurting anyone right now? > > Only the headers are problematic. > > As for the rest, I suggest you look at how grub-extras does this now, but > if you still need this I don't mind keeping it around. > > Do you mind if we stop installing headers then? > What about installing headers in a non-standard directory? And what do we do with multiboot.h and multiboot2.h? >> (footnote) We are applying GPL license to these modules, but they'll >> never end up in the grub tree. Our requirements are too weird. You >> won't want to merge this code, believe me. > > I understand. Good luck with it! > > -- > Robert Millan > > The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and > how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we > still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >
-- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
