On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, adrian15 wrote: > > Well, it sucks compared to the default visual appearance of > > isolinux/syslinux in live-build. > I know, but the purpose of my patch is to add UEFI support. Not to improve > visual appearance of grub2 so that it matches the isolinux/syslinux one.
Well, my initial patch added EFI support on top of syslinux-efi and it thus had a nice visual appearance by default. So for me it's a regression... But I assume it's not a regression in terms of computers supported because I believe that syslinux-efi works for less cases than grub-efi and hence why I did not commit my own patch in the first place. Also I expect that secure boot will be easier to add on top of grub than on top of syslinux. So I agree to apply your patch but I hope that you will stick around to help improve the visual appearance. > These: /install/vmlinuz and /install/initrd.gz strings seem to be hardcoded. > That explains why I did not see them in binary_syslinux . > What does happen if you request both x86 and amd64 in your Debian Live? The > first kernel gets into the /install/vmlinuz and the second kernel gets > discarded? I don't know, I never tried to build images for multiple architectures. It's not a need for me. > I will apply those patches as an addendum to my current changes. I don't > think it's worth the rebased needed for applying first the changes into the > grub-pc code. Fine for me. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/
