Hello everyone.
Please, find the patch for Fedora 10 in the attachment(**).
The distro-independent package will be put to kernel.org a bit later.
I. Loading kernels from btrfs volumes
Now you can load kernels and initrds from btrfs volumes composed of
many devices.
WARNING!!!
Make sure that all components of your loading btrfs volume(*) are
visible to grub. Otherwise, you''ll end with unbootable system.
The list of available grub devices can be obtained, for example,
using tab completion in grub shell.
Number of components of a loading volume is not restricted, however
if it is larger then 128, then the boot process will be slowed down
because of expensive translations (btrfs-device-id -> grub-device-id)
which issue a large number of IOs. We cache only 128 such translations
in grub-0.97 because of high memory pressure.
II. Installing grub from btrfs volumes
You can install grub from a btrfs image volume(*) composed of many
devices (see above about restrictions). Also you can setup any
component of a btrfs boot(*) volume as grub root device.
NOTE!!! Make sure that all components of image and boot volumes(*)
are visible to grub, otherwise grub installer will return error.
TECHNICAL NOTE (for grub developers):
The unpleasant surprise was that grub installer overwrites
(by default!) the file (stage2), bypassing the file system driver.
I can not understand this: it looks like stepping to the clean water
with dirty shoe. Hope that grub2 won''t afford such things.
In order to install grub from a btrfs image volume use special
option (--stage2). This option makes grub installer to rewrite
the file with a help of the OS''s file system (i.e, via write (2)).
Any attempts to install without this option will fail with an error
(wrong argument).
The example of possible installation scenario.
Suppose image volume = root volume = loading volume is composed
of devices (hd0,4), (hd0,5), (hd1,5), (hd1,7) and is not an OS''s
root. We want to setup (hd0,4) as grub root device and install
grub to the mbr of (hd0).
. build and install grub with btrfs support;
. mount your the "3 in 1" btrfs volume to /mnt;
. create a directory /mnt/grub;
. put the built files stage1, stage2, btrfs_stage1_5, grub.conf,
etc. to /mnt/grub;
. run grub shell;
. grub> root (hd0,4)
. grub> setup --stage2=/mnt/grub/stage2 (hd0)
. have a fun.
Use info(1) grub for more details.
(*) Glossary:
. loading volume:
a btrfs volume that contains kernel image and initrd;
. image volume:
a btrfs volume that contains stage1, stage2, btrfs_stage_1_5,
and grub.conf files needed for grub installer;
. boot volume:
a btrfs volume where grub will look for stage2 and grub.conf
files in boot time.
(**) Link to the Fedora''s grub package:
http://ucho.ignum.cz/fedora/linux/releases/10/Fedora/source/SRPMS/grub-0.97-38.fc10.src.rpm
All comments, bugreports, etc. are welcome as usual.
Thanks,
Edward.
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
Hi Edward, I''m sorry but GRUB Legacy is not maintained. At least not by us; we''ve deprecated it in favour of GRUB 2. It is also being abandoned by distributors, so I wouldn''t recommend that you put any effort in developing for it. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody''s threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:21:46PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:> > Hi Edward, > > I''m sorry but GRUB Legacy is not maintained. At least not by us; we''ve > deprecated it in favour of GRUB 2. > > It is also being abandoned by distributors, so I wouldn''t recommend that you > put any effort in developing for it.You''ve been spouting this line for years, and yet my Ubuntu 10.4 machine uses, guess what, GRUB 1. Mainly because you deprecated GRUB Legacy[tm] well before GRUB 2 was usable. (you in the generic sense of the GRUB project here) Edward - please do continue to develop patches for GRUB 1 (the one that still actually works plenty well enough for lots of people) and ignore the naysayers who are happy to throw out backwards compatibility. Sometimes you have to maintain crappy code because people out there depend on it. And we thank those who step up and do it rather than throw their hands up and pretend it doesn''t need doing! Ta, Bron. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:38:10AM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:21:46PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > Hi Edward, > > > > I''m sorry but GRUB Legacy is not maintained. At least not by us; we''ve > > deprecated it in favour of GRUB 2. > > > > It is also being abandoned by distributors, so I wouldn''t recommend that you > > put any effort in developing for it. > > You''ve been spouting this line for years, and yet my Ubuntu 10.4 machine > uses, guess what, GRUB 1. Mainly because you deprecated GRUB Legacy[tm] > well before GRUB 2 was usable. > > (you in the generic sense of the GRUB project here) > > Edward - please do continue to develop patches for GRUB 1 (the one that > still actually works plenty well enough for lots of people) and ignore the > naysayers who are happy to throw out backwards compatibility. > > Sometimes you have to maintain crappy code because people out there depend > on it. And we thank those who step up and do it rather than throw their > hands up and pretend it doesn''t need doing!I''m not telling anyone what should or shouldn''t work with. But if you want to work on a branch we consider deprecated, please do it elsewhere. Discussion regarding GRUB Legacy is off-topic in this list. Thanks -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody''s threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 09/25/2009 07:09 AM, Robert Millan wrote:> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:38:10AM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:21:46PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: >>> >>> Hi Edward, >>> >>> I''m sorry but GRUB Legacy is not maintained. At least not by us; we''ve >>> deprecated it in favour of GRUB 2. >>> >>> It is also being abandoned by distributors, so I wouldn''t recommend that you >>> put any effort in developing for it. >> >> You''ve been spouting this line for years, and yet my Ubuntu 10.4 machine >> uses, guess what, GRUB 1. Mainly because you deprecated GRUB Legacy[tm] >> well before GRUB 2 was usable. >> >> (you in the generic sense of the GRUB project here) >> >> Edward - please do continue to develop patches for GRUB 1 (the one that >> still actually works plenty well enough for lots of people) and ignore the >> naysayers who are happy to throw out backwards compatibility. >> >> Sometimes you have to maintain crappy code because people out there depend >> on it. And we thank those who step up and do it rather than throw their >> hands up and pretend it doesn''t need doing! > > I''m not telling anyone what should or shouldn''t work with. But if you want to > work on a branch we consider deprecated, please do it elsewhere. Discussion > regarding GRUB Legacy is off-topic in this list. > > Thanks >That would be rather unusual - we certainly discuss ext2 and ancient file systems in our ext development lists. A lot of distros (and their users) still use grub, just like a lot of users still use ext2. Working on grub2 is great, but until it meets the needs and wins over the distros, you will unfortunately still need to put up with contributions to the old code base. Have you looked at what it would take you (or others) to move Edward''s patches into grub2? Regards, Ric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:09:51PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:38:10AM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:21:46PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > I''m sorry but GRUB Legacy is not maintained. At least not by us; we''ve > > > deprecated it in favour of GRUB 2. > > > > > > It is also being abandoned by distributors, so I wouldn''t recommend that you > > > put any effort in developing for it. > > > > You''ve been spouting this line for years, and yet my Ubuntu 10.4 machine > > uses, guess what, GRUB 1.I assume you typoed, since there''s no such thing as Ubuntu 10.4 yet. When there is (well, 10.04 anyway), it will use GRUB 2 by default.> > Edward - please do continue to develop patches for GRUB 1 (the one that > > still actually works plenty well enough for lots of people) and ignore the > > naysayers who are happy to throw out backwards compatibility.It would be great if somebody could take up Edward''s work and port it to GRUB 2. If nobody else does then I''d be interested in doing so myself, although I will not be able to start for a month or two from now. Robert is working hard on making GRUB 2 usable, and is just advising Edward that, right now, there is no upstream for GRUB Legacy who could either accept or usefully comment on his patch. It would of course be possible for some people (presumably mostly the distributors who rely on it) to get together and declare themselves the new upstream for GRUB Legacy, but most of the people who might be interested in such things seem to have either lost interest or thrown their weight behind GRUB 2 upstream. Certainly this distributor right here is in the latter camp as it seems much more likely to produce a result that meets our needs in the end. (Plus, I think such a revitalised upstream would be a caretaker at best, and wouldn''t really be able to effectively work on some of the major issues that have dogged distributors of GRUB Legacy for years without reinventing the wheel of GRUB 2.) This isn''t naysaying those people who post patches for GRUB Legacy - but given the reality that nobody is maintaining GRUB Legacy upstream right now, which is better, to have your patch ignored or to receive a note saying that it''s against an unmaintained target? I''d go for not being ignored any day. -- Colin Watson [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 07:16:09AM -0700, Ric Wheeler wrote:> > That would be rather unusual - we certainly discuss ext2 and ancient file > systems in our ext development lists. > > A lot of distros (and their users) still use grub, just like a lot of > users still use ext2.We support ext2 too. And even awfully old things like fat (which is often used with supposedly modern *cough* EFI). -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody''s threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:01:36PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:> This isn''t naysaying those people who post patches for GRUB Legacy - but > given the reality that nobody is maintaining GRUB Legacy upstream right > now, which is better, to have your patch ignored or to receive a note > saying that it''s against an unmaintained target? I''d go for not being > ignored any day.Thankfully grub2 is starting to see distro work. We did ocfs2 grub2 support years ago and ran into this problem. Do the work against grub and no one will take the patch. Do the work against grub2 and upstream will take the patch, but zero users see it because grub2 was unusable by anyone. Here''s the original ocfs2 work from Mark Fasheh: http://osdir.com/ml/boot-loaders.grub.devel/2005-11/msg00025.html It''s sat idle for four years because of the grub2 vs distros confusion. Hopefully we can get it upstream again! Joel -- "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it." - Oscar Wilde Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:01:36PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:09:51PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:38:10AM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:21:46PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > > I''m sorry but GRUB Legacy is not maintained. At least not by us; we''ve > > > > deprecated it in favour of GRUB 2. > > > > > > > > It is also being abandoned by distributors, so I wouldn''t recommend that you > > > > put any effort in developing for it. > > > > > > You''ve been spouting this line for years, and yet my Ubuntu 10.4 machine > > > uses, guess what, GRUB 1. > > I assume you typoed, since there''s no such thing as Ubuntu 10.4 yet. > When there is (well, 10.04 anyway), it will use GRUB 2 by default.Yeah, I meant 9.04 of course. Sorry. The one that''s currently stable! I am running GRUB 2 on my 9.10 laptop, as well as my Debian "testing" box. It works fine, though /boot/grub is full of a LOT of files. Still, it''s simpler all together.> > > Edward - please do continue to develop patches for GRUB 1 (the one that > > > still actually works plenty well enough for lots of people) and ignore the > > > naysayers who are happy to throw out backwards compatibility. > > It would be great if somebody could take up Edward''s work and port it to > GRUB 2. If nobody else does then I''d be interested in doing so myself, > although I will not be able to start for a month or two from now. > > Robert is working hard on making GRUB 2 usable, and is just advising > Edward that, right now, there is no upstream for GRUB Legacy who could > either accept or usefully comment on his patch.Just out of interest, how long has it been that there was no stable supported version of GRUB? My vague memory is that it''s been about 6 years now since GRUB 1 was declared deprecated in favour of the nebulous future.> This isn''t naysaying those people who post patches for GRUB Legacy - but > given the reality that nobody is maintaining GRUB Legacy upstream right > now, which is better, to have your patch ignored or to receive a note > saying that it''s against an unmaintained target? I''d go for not being > ignored any day.Well, yeah. True. There''s no really good path out of here other than everyone moving to GRUB 2 before running any filesystem that''s changed in the past few years as root. Bron. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Colin Watson <cjwatson@ubuntu.com> wrote:> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:09:51PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:38:10AM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:21:46PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: >> > > I''m sorry but GRUB Legacy is not maintained. At least not by us; we''ve >> > > deprecated it in favour of GRUB 2. >> > > >> > > It is also being abandoned by distributors, so I wouldn''t recommend that you >> > > put any effort in developing for it. >> > >> > You''ve been spouting this line for years, and yet my Ubuntu 10.4 machine >> > uses, guess what, GRUB 1. > > I assume you typoed, since there''s no such thing as Ubuntu 10.4 yet. > When there is (well, 10.04 anyway), it will use GRUB 2 by default. > >> > Edward - please do continue to develop patches for GRUB 1 (the one that >> > still actually works plenty well enough for lots of people) and ignore the >> > naysayers who are happy to throw out backwards compatibility. > > It would be great if somebody could take up Edward''s work and port it to > GRUB 2. If nobody else does then I''d be interested in doing so myself, > although I will not be able to start for a month or two from now.Is there any guild lines for porting GPLv2 code to GRUB2? I''ve looked at the GRUB2 wiki but very few things are documented there (http://grub.enbug.org/). I''d like to see what it would take to port the patches. If I can afford it, I''d like to try.> > > Robert is working hard on making GRUB 2 usable, and is just advising > Edward that, right now, there is no upstream for GRUB Legacy who could > either accept or usefully comment on his patch. It would of course be > possible for some people (presumably mostly the distributors who rely on > it) to get together and declare themselves the new upstream for GRUB > Legacy, but most of the people who might be interested in such things > seem to have either lost interest or thrown their weight behind GRUB 2 > upstream. Certainly this distributor right here is in the latter camp as > it seems much more likely to produce a result that meets our needs in > the end. (Plus, I think such a revitalised upstream would be a caretaker > at best, and wouldn''t really be able to effectively work on some of the > major issues that have dogged distributors of GRUB Legacy for years > without reinventing the wheel of GRUB 2.) > > This isn''t naysaying those people who post patches for GRUB Legacy - but > given the reality that nobody is maintaining GRUB Legacy upstream right > now, which is better, to have your patch ignored or to receive a note > saying that it''s against an unmaintained target? I''d go for not being > ignored any day. > > -- > Colin Watson [cjwatson@ubuntu.com] > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >-- Cheers, Peng Tao State Key Laboratory of Networking and Switching Technology Beijing Univ. of Posts and Telecoms. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:29:11AM +0800, Peng Tao wrote:> > > > It would be great if somebody could take up Edward''s work and port it to > > GRUB 2. If nobody else does then I''d be interested in doing so myself, > > although I will not be able to start for a month or two from now. > Is there any guild lines for porting GPLv2 code to GRUB2? I''ve looked > at the GRUB2 wiki but very few things are documented there > (http://grub.enbug.org/). I''d like to see what it would take to port > the patches. If I can afford it, I''d like to try.I assume you mean GPLv2-only code (as opposed to GPLv2-or-later). First step would be to contact the copyright holders and ask them to relicense under v3-compatible terms (e.g. GPLv2-or-later). Chances are they didn''t chose these terms as an act of hostility, but were simply being zealous about allowing something before they knew what it is. If that doesn''t work, we''ll always have Par^W clean room (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design). -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody''s threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:38:10AM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:> > Edward - please do continue to develop patches for GRUB 1 (the one that > still actually works plenty well enough for lots of people) and ignore the > naysayers who are happy to throw out backwards compatibility. > > Sometimes you have to maintain crappy code because people out there depend > on it. And we thank those who step up and do it rather than throw their > hands up and pretend it doesn''t need doing!Btw, I just wanted to add that although we decide to focus on the codebase that has a future, it doesn''t bother me at all that GRUB Legacy is useful to others. We made it free software so that it enables as many users as possible to use their computer in freedom, and so that distributors can adopt it despite our disrecommendation. I don''t regret that they have the practical means to disagree with us and take a different path. It''s precisely the freedom we wanted them to benefit from! Nevertheless, grub-devel is a mailing list for coordination of GRUB 2 development. Most of us are volunteers and our time is quite limited, so bringing up GRUB Legacy development here is at best a distraction. I''ll appreciate if you won''t do that anymore. Thanks for listening -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody''s threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote:> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:29:11AM +0800, Peng Tao wrote: >> > >> > It would be great if somebody could take up Edward''s work and port it to >> > GRUB 2. If nobody else does then I''d be interested in doing so myself, >> > although I will not be able to start for a month or two from now. >> Is there any guild lines for porting GPLv2 code to GRUB2? I''ve looked >> at the GRUB2 wiki but very few things are documented there >> (http://grub.enbug.org/). I''d like to see what it would take to port >> the patches. If I can afford it, I''d like to try. > > I assume you mean GPLv2-only code (as opposed to GPLv2-or-later). First > step would be to contact the copyright holders and ask them to relicense > under v3-compatible terms (e.g. GPLv2-or-later). Chances are they didn''t > chose these terms as an act of hostility, but were simply being zealous > about allowing something before they knew what it is. > > If that doesn''t work, we''ll always have Par^W clean room > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design).Edward''s patch (stage2/fsys_btrfs.c) is declared GPLv2-or-later. But stage2/btrfs.h (which is extracted from btrfs-progs) is GPLv2-only. At the point, we only need a clean room for btrfs.h, right? And I''m not sure what a clean room design in GRUB2 looks like. Is there an example?> > -- > Robert Millan > > The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and > how) you may access your data; but nobody''s threatening your freedom: we > still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >-- Cheers, Peng Tao State Key Laboratory of Networking and Switching Technology Beijing Univ. of Posts and Telecoms. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Vladimir ''phcoder'' Serbinenko
2009-Sep-28 07:47 UTC
Re: grub-0.97: btrfs multidevice support [PATCH]
Peng Tao wrote:> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:29:11AM +0800, Peng Tao wrote: >> >>>> It would be great if somebody could take up Edward''s work and port it to >>>> GRUB 2. If nobody else does then I''d be interested in doing so myself, >>>> although I will not be able to start for a month or two from now. >>>> >>> Is there any guild lines for porting GPLv2 code to GRUB2? I''ve looked >>> at the GRUB2 wiki but very few things are documented there >>> (http://grub.enbug.org/). I''d like to see what it would take to port >>> the patches. If I can afford it, I''d like to try. >>> >> I assume you mean GPLv2-only code (as opposed to GPLv2-or-later). First >> step would be to contact the copyright holders and ask them to relicense >> under v3-compatible terms (e.g. GPLv2-or-later). Chances are they didn''t >> chose these terms as an act of hostility, but were simply being zealous >> about allowing something before they knew what it is. >> >> If that doesn''t work, we''ll always have Par^W clean room >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design). >> > Edward''s patch (stage2/fsys_btrfs.c) is declared GPLv2-or-later. But > stage2/btrfs.h (which is extracted from btrfs-progs) is GPLv2-only. At > the point, we only need a clean room for btrfs.h, right? >Doing any clean room is needed only if other ways fail. And I hope Oracle and btrfs contributors could agree to license under GPLv3-compatible terms> And I''m not sure what a clean room design in GRUB2 looks like. Is > there an example? > >> -- >> Robert Millan >> >> The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and >> how) you may access your data; but nobody''s threatening your freedom: we >> still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Grub-devel mailing list >> Grub-devel@gnu.org >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >> >> > > > >-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 09:47:50AM +0200, Vladimir ''phcoder'' Serbinenko wrote:> Peng Tao wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:29:11AM +0800, Peng Tao wrote: > >> > >>>> It would be great if somebody could take up Edward''s work and port it to > >>>> GRUB 2. If nobody else does then I''d be interested in doing so myself, > >>>> although I will not be able to start for a month or two from now. > >>>> > >>> Is there any guild lines for porting GPLv2 code to GRUB2? I''ve looked > >>> at the GRUB2 wiki but very few things are documented there > >>> (http://grub.enbug.org/). I''d like to see what it would take to port > >>> the patches. If I can afford it, I''d like to try. > >>> > >> I assume you mean GPLv2-only code (as opposed to GPLv2-or-later). First > >> step would be to contact the copyright holders and ask them to relicense > >> under v3-compatible terms (e.g. GPLv2-or-later). Chances are they didn''t > >> chose these terms as an act of hostility, but were simply being zealous > >> about allowing something before they knew what it is. > >> > >> If that doesn''t work, we''ll always have Par^W clean room > >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design). > >> > > Edward''s patch (stage2/fsys_btrfs.c) is declared GPLv2-or-later. But > > stage2/btrfs.h (which is extracted from btrfs-progs) is GPLv2-only. At > > the point, we only need a clean room for btrfs.h, right? > > > Doing any clean room is needed only if other ways fail. And I hope > Oracle and btrfs contributors could agree to license under > GPLv3-compatible termsWe can provide a GPLv3 version for this file. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 09:47:50AM +0200, Vladimir ''phcoder'' Serbinenko wrote:> Peng Tao wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:29:11AM +0800, Peng Tao wrote: > >> > >>>> It would be great if somebody could take up Edward''s work and port it to > >>>> GRUB 2. If nobody else does then I''d be interested in doing so myself, > >>>> although I will not be able to start for a month or two from now. > >>>> > >>> Is there any guild lines for porting GPLv2 code to GRUB2? I''ve looked > >>> at the GRUB2 wiki but very few things are documented there > >>> (http://grub.enbug.org/). I''d like to see what it would take to port > >>> the patches. If I can afford it, I''d like to try. > >>> > >> I assume you mean GPLv2-only code (as opposed to GPLv2-or-later). First > >> step would be to contact the copyright holders and ask them to relicense > >> under v3-compatible terms (e.g. GPLv2-or-later). Chances are they didn''t > >> chose these terms as an act of hostility, but were simply being zealous > >> about allowing something before they knew what it is. > >> > >> If that doesn''t work, we''ll always have Par^W clean room > >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design). > >> > > Edward''s patch (stage2/fsys_btrfs.c) is declared GPLv2-or-later. But > > stage2/btrfs.h (which is extracted from btrfs-progs) is GPLv2-only. At > > the point, we only need a clean room for btrfs.h, right? > > > Doing any clean room is needed only if other ways fail. And I hope > Oracle and btrfs contributors could agree to license under > GPLv3-compatible termsYes, this should only be our last-ressort option. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody''s threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html