Gentoo Archives: gentoo-doc

From: Xavier Neys <neysx@g.o>
To: gentoo-doc@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] [patch] integrate ia64 bootloader into common
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:13:53
In Reply to: [gentoo-doc] [patch] integrate ia64 bootloader into common by Mike Frysinger
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> this patch integrates the ia64 bootloader document into the common one
Sorry, but it does not integrate. What did you want to do with "Optional: Framebuffer"? Keep it? Adapt it? It contains minute differences between x86 & amd64. What about "Alternative: Using ELILO"? ELILO is no alternative, it's the only bootloader. Or isn't it?
> 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 ...
We have no such plan. We are definitely not going to merge palo/aboot/silo... FYI, when we split up parts into ARCH-specific files, we had to choose between splitting or inserting notes like "${ARCH} users should blah blah..." in common files. We want to get rid of the latter. Besides, ARCH-specific files that are very similar like x86 and amd64 were, it's worth using a single file. ARCH-specific files that share only a bit of content are not worth merging. If the framebuffer bit is needed on ia64, we might merge using your patch with s/Alternative: Using ELILO/Default: Using ELILO/ If ELILO needs to be supported on x86/amd64, then we'd probably want to merge x86/amd64/ia64 into a single bootloader.xml At the moment, of the 4 ia64-specific files, the bootloader one is the most different and the least likely to be worth merging with x86/amd64. Cheers, -- / Xavier Neys \_ Gentoo Documentation Project / /\ -- gentoo-doc@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-doc] [patch] integrate ia64 bootloader into common Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>