6039 installgrub MBR update response check should use locale specific yesexpr

Review Request #69 — Created June 26, 2015 and submitted

Information
tsoome
illumos-gate
6039
f3abc21...
Reviewers
general 
6039 installgrub MBR update response check should use locale specific yesexpr
executed installgrub -m stage1 stage2 device and tested with different responses. only locale specific yes did result in mbr update. In et_EE the yesexpr is ^((jJ?)|(yY?))




root@test:/home/tsoome# ./installgrub  -m /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c3t2d0s0 

Updating master boot sector destroys existing boot managers (if any).

continue (y/n)? kei

master boot sector not updated

Unable to gather device information for /dev/rdsk/c3t2d0s0

root@test:/home/tsoome# ./installgrub  -m /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c3t2d0s0 

Updating master boot sector destroys existing boot managers (if any).

continue (y/n)? no

master boot sector not updated

Unable to gather device information for /dev/rdsk/c3t2d0s0

root@test:/home/tsoome# ./installgrub  -m /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c3t2d0s0 

Updating master boot sector destroys existing boot managers (if any).

continue (y/n)? qui

master boot sector not updated

Unable to gather device information for /dev/rdsk/c3t2d0s0

root@test:/home/tsoome# ./installgrub  -m /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c3t2d0s0 

Updating master boot sector destroys existing boot managers (if any).

continue (y/n)? jah

WARNING: target device /dev/rdsk/c3t2d0s0 has a versioned stage2 that is going to be overwritten by a non versioned one

stage2 written to partition 0, 289 sectors starting at 1024 (abs 1280)

stage1 written to partition 0 sector 0 (abs 256)

stage1 written to master boot sector

root@test:/home/tsoome# ./installgrub  -m /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c3t2d0s0 

Updating master boot sector destroys existing boot managers (if any).

continue (y/n)? yes

stage2 written to partition 0, 289 sectors starting at 1024 (abs 1280)

stage1 written to partition 0 sector 0 (abs 256)

stage1 written to master boot sector

root@test:/home/tsoome# ./installgrub  -m /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c3t2d0s0 

Updating master boot sector destroys existing boot managers (if any).

continue (y/n)? yes

stage2 written to partition 0, 289 sectors starting at 1024 (abs 1280)

stage1 written to partition 0 sector 0 (abs 256)

stage1 written to master boot sector

root@test:/home/tsoome# ./installgrub  -m /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c3t2d0s0 

Updating master boot sector destroys existing boot managers (if any).

continue (y/n)? j 

stage2 written to partition 0, 289 sectors starting at 1024 (abs 1280)

stage1 written to partition 0 sector 0 (abs 256)

stage1 written to master boot sector

root@test:/home/tsoome#
tsoome
tsoome
danmcd
danmcd 
  1. Seems okay to me. Please get one more review prior to RTI, however.
    1. I stand by this ship it, even with the removal of inc.flg.
  2. 
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    3. 




  

 
















 





 

  

   




hans




   

   







  

 



 

  


   

   

    
 
hans


    
   


  

  

  



    




  1. 
 
    
  
    
   
    Ship It!
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    2. 















  2. 
 
    
  
    
   
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    3. 




  

 
















 





 

  

   




risto3




   

   





  

 



 

  


   

   

    
 
risto3


    
   


  

  

  



    




  1. 
 
    
  
    
   
    Sorry, let me understand something here... the question is answered in English, but the response is to be input localised?
    

    As I frequently work in multiple locales, I'd like to make sure that the question is always posed in the language
    
that the response should be in (with apropriate yes/no clues like oui/non, kylää/ei, já/nei and so on)
    

    Example: how to differentiate between a greek Ναι/Όχι from a french Oui/Non
    

    (this is why I also don't like (y/n) which should be (yes/no))
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  


    1. 
 
 
      
 
      
  
 
      
 
      
  
      the question is formed in MBOOT_PROMPT macro, which is text wrapped into gettext(), so its the translators job to make sure yes/no is properly translated there - in english base text the y/n is fine, but nothing prevents translator to use form full word there to avoid potential confusion. from point of view of response check, both short and long cases are handled according to locale data (as seen in tests). also, afaik it is pretty much norm now to have locale specific yes/no expressions to include english variants as well, so despite the locale you can answer in english as well (not sure how universal this is, but seems so).
      
 
      

      2. 



    2. 
 
 
      
 
      
  
 
      
 
      
  
      LC_MESSAGES/LCL_DATA does seem to include english as you say, fine.
      
Too bad existing programs don't force to locale "C" if the prompt text isn't translated. 
      
Perhaps the (y/n) should be (yes/no) by default...(see how it was done for rm() in cmd/rm/rm.c)
      
 
      

      3. 



    3. 
 
 
      
 
      
  
 
      
 
      
  
      IMO thats really bad style, you end up with partially translated message prompt. locale data is translated and rest of the message is not if there is no translation. Really ugly. Only feed full messages to gettext() and if needed, source message should be updated. I have done too much of the translation to go for such mixup;)
      
 
      

      4. 



    4. 
 
 
      
 
      
  
 
      
 
      
  
      btw, is this response satisfactory and can i proceed with RTI?:)
      
 
      

      5. 



    5. 
 
 
      
 
      
  
 
      
 
      
  
      NB I didn't open an issue, I asked for further information.
      

      I'll give an example (my locale is fr_FR.UTF-I):
      

      richard@omnis:/home/richard/tcom$ cp ../acpi.dmp  .
richard@omnis:/home/richard/tcom$ compress -v acpi.dmp 
acpi.dmp: Compression: 62,17% -- replaced with acpi.dmp.Z
richard@omnis:/home/richard/tcom$ cp ../acpi.dmp  .
richard@omnis:/home/richard/tcom$ compress -v acpi.dmp 
acpi.dmp.Z already exists; do you wish to overwrite acpi.dmp.Z (oui or non)? n
    not overwritten
richard@omnis:/home/richard/tcom$ rm -i acpi.dmp.Z 
rm: remove acpi.dmp.Z (oui/non)? oui
richard@omnis:/home/richard/tcom$ ls
acpi.dmp

      

      I guess I'd rather let the advocates decide whether this derogation be allowed or not.
      
 
      

      6. 


 
    


    

 
    

    2. 















  2. 
 
    
  
    
   
    
  
    
 
    

 
    
  


    
 
    
 
      

  

 
    


    

 
    

    3. 




  

 
















 



 

  

   




tsoome




   

   

  

 



 















 



 

  

   




tsoome




   

   

  

 



 

  


   

   

    
 Review request changed

    
   


  

  

  






 

  Status:
  

  Closed (submitted)

  
 







 


 










  

 









     

    

   

  

  

   
   Loading...