worth the work, are you serious? it's an essential Unix feature to have policy separate from implementation.

this addition has not been rejected as absolutely no grounds exist for such. it simply hasn't been decided-on finally yet by the project admins.

this is about a broader issue of having *the user be able to decide exactly and by broadest means* what to boot.

for example, both your patches don't account for what is in this sense inherently inaccordant GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID option, which now must remain due to backwards-compatibility almost indefinitely.

It's good to see someone taking another look at this :)

My only comments right now without looking too closely would be:

1. Why do work on obsolete 1.98 code? Better to use trunk or at least 2.00

2. Use:- diff -u original_file new_file > mypatch.patch
to create your patches,

3. Patch the filename.in files in the source tree not the final ones. The final files are generated from the .in files during build. (see also "diff -ur" to diff the whole tree)

I don't know much about how this all works now, the code has changed a lot since I made my patches back in 2010.

I gave up as it was rejected out of hand with no real explanation of the exact reasons.

Very demotivating after weeks of work.

I hope you have more success,

I added a config option which lets the user choose between the usage of UUID, LABEL and partition number.

Seems to work fine, but I don't know how to make option GRUB_USE_PARTIDTYPE visible from /etc/default/gru:

# Uncomment if you don't want GRUB to pass "root=UUID=xxx" parameter to Linux
GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID="true"
# JPT: use uuid, label or partition
GRUB_USE_PARTIDTYPE="label"

Please see attached diffs, too.