| 1 |
On 22 February 2012 06:57, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> [...] Given that Grub 1 is |
| 3 |
> both beta software (it got stuck at 0.97, never made it to 1.0) and |
| 4 |
> unmaintained, |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Just looking at KDE 4.0 and GNOME 3.0 should tell you that version |
| 7 |
numbers can be *very* deceiving. And while grub-0.97 may "officially" |
| 8 |
be beta software it is much more stable than a lot of software that |
| 9 |
does sport the 1.0 designation. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I think we should keep this version of grub around, at least for a |
| 12 |
while longer, since a lot of our users are used to this essential |
| 13 |
piece of software and may be hesitant to migrate to grub2 or other |
| 14 |
boot loaders. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> stabilizing Grub 2 ASAP is the sanest thing you can do, since |
| 17 |
> even though it's also beta software, it's at least maintained by upstream. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I would hesitate to say it's the *sanest* thing to do, but we should |
| 20 |
at least get it into ~arch and make sure our documentation is up to |
| 21 |
date. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Cheers, |
| 24 |
Ben |
Archives