[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Remove gPXE workaround (fixed in grub2 as #635877)



On 22/07/13 22:48, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org> (2013-07-22):
>>    [ Steven Chamberlain ]
>>    * Drop GRUB module pxecmd, which was merged into pxe
>> +  * Remove gPXE workaround (fixed in grub2 as #635877)
> 
> Thanks. Might be worth mentioning both target hurd/kfreebsd, so that later
> readers don't have to figure out whether they're affected by those changes.

I didn't think of that, yes maybe, but those two are the only arches
using grub2pxe;  others use pxelinux.

> Also, I think it could be nice to have grub2's fix into testing [...]

Do you mean the #635877 fix making the gPXE workaround redundant?
(Specifically, it was disabling of the multiboot header in the
i386-pc-pxe target, by upstream 2.00).  I thought that was already in
testing...

> (grub2's migration is a story in itself, see another
> list these days…)

OK I will look into that.  But already this has me puzzled:
packages.d.o and the PTS suggest grub2 2.00-14 in jessie, but bug
#635877's version graph seems confused...

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/version.cgi?info=1;absolute=0;fixed=grub2%2F2.00-1;fixed=grub2%2F2.00-4;collapse=1;found=grub2%2F1.99-9;package=grub-pc

I think this should wait until I'm thinking coherently in any case.


Would it be appropriate for me to ask for commit access to d-i Git,
perhaps for this, or likely for small d-i bits in future?

This might have been less effort all round, and I might have done a
better job of it, if I was less tired from fighting `git send-email` and
other Git fun these past 2 hours.


On 22/07/13 22:36, Robert Millan wrote:
> [...] I'm not sure how this works. Am I supposed to
> just apply them, or do you expect your name to show up in the git log?
> I'm afraid I don't know how to do the later [...]

I'm not sure how the committer does this, but yes it's supposed to work
something like that if I send patches in that form;  I suspect git-am(1)
is used.


Thank you!

Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
steven@pyro.eu.org


Reply to: