| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Ben <yngwin@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 22 February 2012 06:57, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> [...] Given that Grub 1 is |
| 4 |
>> both beta software (it got stuck at 0.97, never made it to 1.0) and |
| 5 |
>> unmaintained, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Just looking at KDE 4.0 and GNOME 3.0 should tell you that version |
| 8 |
> numbers can be *very* deceiving. And while grub-0.97 may "officially" |
| 9 |
> be beta software it is much more stable than a lot of software that |
| 10 |
> does sport the 1.0 designation. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I think we should keep this version of grub around, at least for a |
| 13 |
> while longer, since a lot of our users are used to this essential |
| 14 |
> piece of software and may be hesitant to migrate to grub2 or other |
| 15 |
> boot loaders. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
My intent was not to suggest that we ditch grub1, but that grub2 would |
| 18 |
be stable and the 'default' assuming we (I?) can get it to work. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-A |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>> stabilizing Grub 2 ASAP is the sanest thing you can do, since |
| 24 |
>> even though it's also beta software, it's at least maintained by upstream. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I would hesitate to say it's the *sanest* thing to do, but we should |
| 27 |
> at least get it into ~arch and make sure our documentation is up to |
| 28 |
> date. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Cheers, |
| 31 |
> Ben |
| 32 |
> |
Archives