| 1 |
All, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I want to look into removing grub:0 from the tree; here are my thoughts |
| 4 |
on why it should go. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
- the handbook doesn't document grub:0; we officially only support |
| 7 |
grub:2. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
- There are multiple bugs open against grub:0 (15 at my last count). A |
| 10 |
number of these as I understand it are because of custom patches we |
| 11 |
apply. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
- grub:0 can't boot a nomultilib system, so we have to maintain a |
| 14 |
separate package (grub-static) specifically for that setup. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
- Removing grub:0 from the tree doesn't stop you from using it. If people |
| 17 |
really want it I will place it in the graveyard overlay. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
- We have custom patches for grub:0, which will never go upstream. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
- grub:0 is dead upstream. They have not done any work on it in years. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
- The only real problem with grub:2 has to do with pperception. Yes, |
| 24 |
their documentation has a strong preference toward using their |
| 25 |
configuration script (grub-mkconfig) to generate your grub.cfg, but |
| 26 |
this is not required. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So, I want to make a plan to lastrite grub:0 and grub-static. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'm thinking, in about a week, p.mask grub:0 along with grub-static and |
| 31 |
send out a lastrites msg with a 30 day removal notice. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If there any technical objections to this, let me know what they are. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
William |
Archives