A version with biosdisk, pc and ext2
before: 24800
after: 24687
But another matter is expandability - preboot hooks are important.
Without them implementation of sendkey or map is impossible. And adding
preboot hooks to kernel would increase its size by 150-200 bytes.
Also I don't see how this c
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:11:33PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
> El lun, 08-09-2008 a las 22:48 +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen escribió:
> > phcoder wrote:
> > > Hello. As I said in another email there is no need for it. I send a
> > > patch for it.
> >
> > Doesn't this break our rescue mode ?
> How wou
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:59:02PM +0200, Javier Martín wrote:
> El lun, 08-09-2008 a las 23:25 +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen escribió:
> > Javier Martín wrote:
> > > El lun, 08-09-2008 a las 22:48 +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen escribió:
> > >> phcoder wrote:
> > >>> Hello. As I said in another email there i
I did. The discussion seems to simply have died out without any official
response
Thanks
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote:
phcoder wrote:
Hello,all. I was busy studying so wasn't watching the list. Is there a
particular reason why my patch still isn't incorporated?
Perhap
phcoder wrote:
> Hello,all. I was busy studying so wasn't watching the list. Is there a
> particular reason why my patch still isn't incorporated?
Perhaps we didn't like the move of loader/boot core functionality out of
kernel?
And I do not remember you describing in detail about interfaces and
f
Hello,all. I was busy studying so wasn't watching the list. Is there a
particular reason why my patch still isn't incorporated?
Thanks
phcoder
Javier Martín wrote:
El lun, 08-09-2008 a las 23:25 +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen escribió:
Javier Martín wrote:
El lun, 08-09-2008 a las 22:48 +0300, Vesa
El lun, 08-09-2008 a las 23:25 +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen escribió:
> Javier Martín wrote:
> > El lun, 08-09-2008 a las 22:48 +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen escribió:
> >> phcoder wrote:
> >>> Hello. As I said in another email there is no need for it. I send a
> >>> patch for it.
> >> Doesn't this break ou
Javier Martín wrote:
> El lun, 08-09-2008 a las 22:48 +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen escribió:
>> phcoder wrote:
>>> Hello. As I said in another email there is no need for it. I send a
>>> patch for it.
>> Doesn't this break our rescue mode ?
> How would it? As with other commands, there would be two ver
El lun, 08-09-2008 a las 22:48 +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen escribió:
> phcoder wrote:
> > Hello. As I said in another email there is no need for it. I send a
> > patch for it.
>
> Doesn't this break our rescue mode ?
How would it? As with other commands, there would be two versions of it,
one for res
phcoder wrote:
> Hello. As I said in another email there is no need for it. I send a
> patch for it.
Doesn't this break our rescue mode ?
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
El vie, 05-09-2008 a las 18:13 +0200, phcoder escribió:
> Hello. As I said in another email there is no need for it. I send a
> patch for it.
Well, I won't deny the patch is clever and looks good (I haven't tested
it yet). However, taking the generic "boot" command out of kernel and
leaving the sev
Hello. As I said in another email there is no need for it. I send a
patch for it.
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
Javier Martín wrote:
> El mié, 03-09-2008 a las 20:53 +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen escribió:
>> phcoder wrote:
>>> Hello. In this case we can transfer the whole functionality located in
>>> k
12 matches
Mail list logo
