Re: appropriate code for a GRUB-specific option

[OKUJI Yoshinori <okuji@kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp>]

From: Christoph Plattner <christoph.plattner@alcatel.at>
Subject: Re: appropriate code for a GRUB-specific option
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:54:01 +0200

> I never wanted and want to violate against standards. Standards are
> the most important thing in my opinion and the basic for the
> UNIX world.

  I'm sorry, I was misunderstanding what you meant.

> GRUB also would do this. GRUB sees this as root for itself, where
> stage1, stage2 and menu.lst are saved - in this case only 'menu.lst'
> is saved. Do I violate a RFC standard in this way ?

  RFC 1497 says:

         Root Path  (Tag: 17, Data: N bytes of path name)

            A string to specify a pathname to mount as a root disk.

I must admit that this is very ambigous, but do you really think it
would be natural to "mount" a configuration file? IMO, you are
extending the meaning too much. In addition, taking account of the
situation where the author wrote the RFC, I guess that the author
wanted to mean that the pathname specifies a NFS or a root image file.

> So I saw - for my first test implementation - T99 works. I have not 
> tested 150, if it also can transport strings.

  I tested it with bootpd-2.4 and the server returned a correct string
when running bootptest. So I think there is no problem with it.

Okuji
===========================================================================
This Mail was sent to netboot mailing list by:
OKUJI Yoshinori <okuji@kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
To get help about this list, send a mail with 'help' as the only string in
it's body to majordomo@baghira.han.de. If you have problems with this list,
send a mail to netboot-owner@baghira.han.de.