| 1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> this patch integrates the ia64 bootloader document into the common one |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Sorry, but it does not integrate. |
| 5 |
What did you want to do with "Optional: Framebuffer"? |
| 6 |
Keep it? Adapt it? It contains minute differences between x86 & amd64. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
What about "Alternative: Using ELILO"? |
| 9 |
ELILO is no alternative, it's the only bootloader. Or isn't it? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> perhaps it would make sense to re-architect the bootloader document like: |
| 12 |
> hb-install-bootloader.xml |
| 13 |
> hb-install-bootloader-grub.xml |
| 14 |
> hb-install-bootloader-elilo.xml |
| 15 |
> hb-install-bootloader-lilo.xml |
| 16 |
> ... |
| 17 |
> otherwise trying to integrate other bootloader documents isnt going to be |
| 18 |
> fun ... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
We have no such plan. We are definitely not going to merge palo/aboot/silo... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
FYI, when we split up parts into ARCH-specific files, we had to choose between |
| 23 |
splitting or inserting notes like "${ARCH} users should blah blah..." in |
| 24 |
common files. We want to get rid of the latter. Besides, ARCH-specific files |
| 25 |
that are very similar like x86 and amd64 were, it's worth using a single file. |
| 26 |
ARCH-specific files that share only a bit of content are not worth merging. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If the framebuffer bit is needed on ia64, we might merge using your patch with |
| 29 |
s/Alternative: Using ELILO/Default: Using ELILO/ |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
If ELILO needs to be supported on x86/amd64, then we'd probably want to merge |
| 32 |
x86/amd64/ia64 into a single bootloader.xml |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
At the moment, of the 4 ia64-specific files, the bootloader one is the most |
| 35 |
different and the least likely to be worth merging with x86/amd64. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Cheers, |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
/ Xavier Neys |
| 41 |
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project |
| 42 |
/ |
| 43 |
/\ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ |
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-doc@g.o mailing list |
Archives