Re: GRUB maintainership

[Erich Boleyn <erich@uruk.org>]

Roland McGrath <roland@frob.com> wrote:

> > OK.  I can do both the above easily enough, but doesn't having 0-based
> > numbering for disks and 1-based for slices seem a bit inconsistent? (maybe
> > this is just the math geek in me...)
> 
> It sure does.  It's not self-consistent.  But we have all been so scarred
> already by the irrational horrors perpetrated on us by the PC world that
> it's now more important to be consistent with the canonical inconsistency
> than to offer something self-consistent but inconsistent with the internal
> inconsistency of everything else.  

That's a tongue-twister.  OK, I'll do it.  I'll even run my proposal for
the final disk-referencing syntax by these lists (uhhh, in a few days).

Sound OK?

> > ...but the newer BIOS interfaces are really out for the first sector.
> > There's just not nearly enough room to do this while providing
> > compatibility with the old interface, which we still need for some time.
> 
> If LILO can do it, why can't you?

Trying to shame me into it, eh?  :)

More seriously, the most recent version of LILO that I have doesn't appear
to support this in the first sector at all.  Which version are you talking
about?  (or am I just dense?)

--
    Erich Stefan Boleyn                      \_         <erich@uruk.org>
  Mad Scientist  --  CyberMuffin               \__    http://www.uruk.org/
  Motto: "I'll live forever or die trying"        ---------------------------