Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:25 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> this patch integrates the ia64 bootloader document into the common one
>>
>> perhaps it would make sense to re-architect the bootloader document like:
>> hb-install-bootloader.xml
>> hb-install-bootloader-grub.xml
>> hb-install-bootloader-elilo.xml
>> hb-install-bootloader-lilo.xml
>> ...
>> otherwise trying to integrate other bootloader documents isnt going to be 
>> fun ...

It makes less sense to split out/recombine the bootloader documents
based on bootloader choice, because then we'll have even more
unnecessary duplication of content. Right now, only amd64+x86 have a
combined bootloader page, because they're similar enough that we can do
conditionals for them. We don't have a single hb-install-bootloader doc,
just FYI, because each arch is different enough to require a unique
page, and I'm fine with that.

You're right, it wouldn't be fun to integrate other bootloader
documents; they're just too different already, so that's why we aren't
integrating them to this extent.

We'd copy 99% of the same text and only change the <pre>s for lilo or
grub if we split 'em based on bootloader choice, and that's just plain
silly. Makes maintainance harder, not easier....

> I agree, especially once/if elilo becomes a supported bootloader on
> x86/amd64, due to Intel Mac machines.

...Especially since only one or two arches (at most) *might* (as Chris
mentions) gain support for EFI. In other words, *if* that day comes, the
only place elilo would go is in the existing amd64+x86 combo page.

So, er, thanks, but no thanks? Is there a way to say that without
sounding rude? I appreciate the work, but there isn't a place for it at
the moment. :)