| 1 |
On 05/29/2013 09:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:56:00PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> There are a couple of other possible approaches... |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> 1) If the 2 systems can achieve peacefull co-existance (i.e. |
| 6 |
>>> no identically-named files with different contents) then simply |
| 7 |
>>> have 2 boot entries in /etc/lilo.conf (or grub equivalant)... |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> [SNIP to shorten mail] |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Users can already do this, this isn't a solution. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> We want to make this easier towards the user, therefore doing |
| 14 |
>> heavy discussion to exhaust all the alternatives and maybe |
| 15 |
>> someone's interested in implementing one of them that appears |
| 16 |
>> most feasible. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Since users can already do this, why are we bothering with |
| 19 |
> re-inventing the wheel? How does running an eselect init command |
| 20 |
> make it easier for the user than telling them to edit their boot |
| 21 |
> loader config file? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Gentoo users are expected to build their kernel and write their |
| 24 |
> boot loader config file initially, so why are we trying to dumb |
| 25 |
> this down? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> William |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
There is no harm in providing alternatives. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 35 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |
Archives