Hello! On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 09:10:19AM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > I fixed some bugs and did some further improvements; please consider the > > attached patch. There would be -- at least in my opinion -- a lot more > > to refactor in update-grub, but I stopped at this point.
Attached is an updated patch against the Debian grub svn repository. > > Remaining question: > > > > * Is it wise to have the Xen entries _after_ the non-Xen entries in > > GRUB's menu.lst? (Think w.r.t. booting without a connected terminal, but > > still having a non-Xen kernel installed for whatever reasons.) > > Reasonable point. Ok. I did that change in the attached patch. > > * Is it wise to not have update-grub create a ``single-user mode'' / > > ``recovery mode'' entry for Xen kernels? > > I hads omitted it because it cluttered the menu.lst menu: its easy to > have NxM menu item entries with N hypervisors and M kernels, > doubling that with recovery kernels quickly gets a huge menu, > which is mostly pointless given the ability with grub to so in and > create a 'recovery entry' as necessary. But this is a matter of > personal taste I'll leave for upstream maintainers. I agree, so I didn't implement that functionality. I've also worked in Marco Nenciarin's suggestion of having the options for the Xen hypervisor configurable (which I had already prepared in my previous patch). On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 03:51:20PM +0200, Marco Nenciarini wrote: > The previous patch only apply on already patched (with first patch) > update-grub Correct. My work is based on the Debian grub svn repository, so that the Debian maintainers can apply it easily. Regards, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
