On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 03:26, ron minnich wrote:
I think this has come up. I hate like heck to think about putting a fork of Etherboot in the linuxbios tree. It just seems like a bad idea.
Very bad idea - especially as Etherboot is undergoing significant development just now, with the PXE support (essentially Etherboot's equivalent of ADLO) being complete. Also a managment change, as Ken Yap has handed over to Marty Connor and Tim Legge.
I think we need to figure out what about it Etherboot group might not like, and try to resolve it.
Why not just ask? :) It's being discussed on etherboot-developers right now.
Filo is a different situation, as it has no real home and I don't think Takeshita would object if Filo was in a contrib part of the linuxbios tree.
My suggestion is to consider managing FILO as part of the Etherboot tree - Etherboot already has an IDE disk driver, which predates FILO, IIRC. The two projects are obvious complements. Also, I'd bet that an integrated set of net / disk / flash device services would play much better for integration with other projects like grub2.