On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:13:30PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:27:29AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > > > > I have two concerns with this: > > > - grub-probe can possibly fail in other circumstances and we will display > > > a misleading error message in those cases > > > > grub-probe's messages aren't always appropiate for grub legacy's update-grub > > (see #495909). Besides, when "-t drive" fails it always means that > > device.map > > is wrong. > > > > > But in the mean time for Grub 1, wouldn't the best solution simply be > > > to regenerate the device.map in case of errors and try again ? > > > > We tried this, and the solution was worse than the problem. In the end it > > had to be reverted. > > Sorry but I don't understand how you concile the two sentences that you > gave: > - on one side you say that "-t drive" only fails when device.map is wrong > and you accept that we invite the user to regenerate it
s/regenerate/check/g. When device.map is wrong, it doesn't necessarily mean we have to regenerate it. This could be our own fault, e.g. if grub-mkdevicemap doesn't recognise a new device type. > - on the other side you tell me that trying to regenerate it only when "-t > drive" fails has been tried and was worse than the problem > > What do I miss ? The behaviour is inconsistent with what users tend to reasonably expect, and very confusing to those who aren't aware of it. See for example #479056. Also, it makes debugging a PITA. -- 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." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
