| 1 |
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:35:19 -0400 |
| 2 |
Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 06/25/2012 12:15 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 5 |
> > An official release of grub-2.00 should be coming pretty soon. I |
| 6 |
> > would like to keyword this for ~amd64 and ~x86 shortly after it |
| 7 |
> > hits the tree. I don't do much work on base system packages, so I |
| 8 |
> > would like some advice on how to make this as smooth as possible. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > My main concern is that many people probably have sys-boot/grub in |
| 11 |
> > @world. If grub:2 is made visible, portage will install it, and will |
| 12 |
> > remove grub-0.97 on the next depclean. This could be a little |
| 13 |
> > confusing, but should not cause any immediate damage since the copy |
| 14 |
> > of grub-0.97 installed in the MBR and /boot would remain intact. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Is this worthy of a news item? Or I just blog about it? |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Anything else I need to think about here? |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > Note: The Gentoo Documentation Project has indicated that they do |
| 21 |
> > not want to add anything to the handbook until we are somewhat |
| 22 |
> > close to stabilizing grub:2. That's at least a couple months away. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I think it would be best to move sys-boot/grub:2 to sys-boot/grub2. |
| 25 |
> That should avoid confusion. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If our plan is to replace grub1 with grub2 at some point, that seems |
| 28 |
incorrect. In other words, if grub2 is 'natural progress' from grub1. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
Michał Górny |
Archives