Re: identifying module types

[Tristan Gingold]

[Sorry for the late reply]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 02:56:10PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 06:31 +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 06:02:31PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 06:09 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
[...]
> > > One option is a fixed-length encoded field, say 32 bytes wide. To avoid
> > > namespace collisions, we could require that projects prefix types with
> > > their project name, which must be at least 4 bytes.
> > Nb: UUID are 16 bytes and collisions are avoided.
> 
> Please detail your proposal.
You have exposed it just below better than I could.
 
> > I prefer the use of a fixed-length field.
> 
> Me too.
> 
> > But that's my own opinion (UUID are
> > easy to generate, to compare and well-known - do not reinvent the wheel).
> 
> UUIDs, e.g.  550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000, are also completely
> unintelligible, so they cannot be the only answer.
Sure.
 
> So far you seem to be advocating the following:
>         module [--type TYPE | --uuid UUID] file
>         
> TYPE: an English word that GRUB translates to a UUID. GRUB must therefor
> maintain a table of known types and their associated UUIDs.
> UUID: a 16-byte number which can be represented as 36 ASCII characters
> (including hyphens).
> 
> How should we generate the UUIDs for the table in GRUB? I'll just run
> uuidgen here and create them myself?
Yes.

> Does anybody object to this scheme?
Tristan.