1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:25 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
>> this patch integrates the ia64 bootloader document into the common one |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> perhaps it would make sense to re-architect the bootloader document like: |
6 |
>> hb-install-bootloader.xml |
7 |
>> hb-install-bootloader-grub.xml |
8 |
>> hb-install-bootloader-elilo.xml |
9 |
>> hb-install-bootloader-lilo.xml |
10 |
>> ... |
11 |
>> otherwise trying to integrate other bootloader documents isnt going to be |
12 |
>> fun ... |
13 |
|
14 |
It makes less sense to split out/recombine the bootloader documents |
15 |
based on bootloader choice, because then we'll have even more |
16 |
unnecessary duplication of content. Right now, only amd64+x86 have a |
17 |
combined bootloader page, because they're similar enough that we can do |
18 |
conditionals for them. We don't have a single hb-install-bootloader doc, |
19 |
just FYI, because each arch is different enough to require a unique |
20 |
page, and I'm fine with that. |
21 |
|
22 |
You're right, it wouldn't be fun to integrate other bootloader |
23 |
documents; they're just too different already, so that's why we aren't |
24 |
integrating them to this extent. |
25 |
|
26 |
We'd copy 99% of the same text and only change the <pre>s for lilo or |
27 |
grub if we split 'em based on bootloader choice, and that's just plain |
28 |
silly. Makes maintainance harder, not easier.... |
29 |
|
30 |
> I agree, especially once/if elilo becomes a supported bootloader on |
31 |
> x86/amd64, due to Intel Mac machines. |
32 |
|
33 |
...Especially since only one or two arches (at most) *might* (as Chris |
34 |
mentions) gain support for EFI. In other words, *if* that day comes, the |
35 |
only place elilo would go is in the existing amd64+x86 combo page. |
36 |
|
37 |
So, er, thanks, but no thanks? Is there a way to say that without |
38 |
sounding rude? I appreciate the work, but there isn't a place for it at |
39 |
the moment. :) |