Ron,
Do you need to create contrib or payload dir to put such kind of patch.
Because Etherboot group may not accept such kind of patch.
Regards
YH
-----邮件原件----- 发件人: YhLu 发送时间: 2004年4月26日 19:11 收件人: Stefan Reinauer; ebiederman@lnxi.com; ron minnich 抄送: Linuxbios@clustermatic.org 主题: Etherboot 5.2.4 + btext console + filo patch
Stefan or Eric,
Please help to test the patch.
After add sth in filo_x.c, we can support simple menu....
Regards
YH
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, YhLu wrote:
Do you need to create contrib or payload dir to put such kind of patch.
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.
I think we need to figure out what about it Etherboot group might not like, and try to resolve it.
This is a conflict resolution step we try (and do not always succeed) to apply in this group. Sometimes, we just proceed without resolving the disagreement, but that is obviously not desirable.
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.
comments anyone?
ron
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.
On 27 Apr 2004, Peter Lister wrote:
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.
There is enough appeal to the simplicity of FILO that we're not as interested (here anyway) in the etherboot integration. FILO is a small simple loader that does what it does well; Etherboot is a whole lot more complex. That does not mean I think merging it in is bad, but I also would like to see it maintain its seperate existence.
ron
-
Peter Lister -
ron minnich -
YhLu