Bug#731709: grub-efi UEFI support based on debian-cd work complete (repos)
On 25 January 2016 at 03:05, adrian15 <adrian15sgd@gmail.com> wrote:
> El 24/01/16 a las 16:51, Michal Suchanek escribió:
> What you are describing here is what it's actually implemented in my patch
> (Well, actually the first patch version because the current one enforces
> bootloader roles).
Actually, no.
Nowhere in the description is any bootloader designated primary or
secondary or first or second. On purpose.
> So what about primary and secondary terms? Or first or
> second terms?
Both are broken and confusing.
>
> These terms are used in two places:
> * Internal variables and functions to handle bootloaders
> * Information shown to the final user
>
> I'm most convinced to use the first and non-first notation. So that the old
> code that referred to LB_BOOTLOADER can just refer to: LB_FIRST_BOOTLOADER.
For what piece of code we have does it make sense to reference
LB_FIRST_BOOTLOADER when not also referencing LB_SECOND_BOOTLOADER?
Will that be extended to LB_THIRD_BOOTLOADER once x86 grows support
for coreboot or l-b grows support for some other platform with many
firmware variants?
If you set bootloaders like
LB_BOOTLOADERS="syslinux grub-efi"
then you can just do
for bootloader in $LB_BOOTLOADERS ; do some $bootloader foo
after you check that you have at most two bootloaders and if you have
more than one then only the latter one ends with -efi.
Thanks
Michal
Reply to: