| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Fernando Rodriguez <cyklonite@×××××.com> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 10/04/2016 06:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > This would actually be another reason to get rid of grub-0, if it can't |
| 7 |
> > build on one of our profiles, it will more than likely never be fixed |
| 8 |
> > upstream because they are now focused on grub-2.x. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> grub-0 is 32-bit software. You could build it without multilib but you need |
| 11 |
> the dependencies like any other package (and link them statically). And |
| 12 |
> there |
| 13 |
> are other packages on the tree that don't build on all profiles. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
USE="abi_x86_32" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
>> Another alternative would be simply hard-masking it, but leaving it in |
| 21 |
> >> place for those who want it. It does still work, and I see no evidence |
| 22 |
> >> we're removing it due to security issues or breakage. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > We are removing it because upstream has a new version of the software |
| 25 |
> > and has moved on from this one. For most packages, if foo-1.0 is |
| 26 |
> > stable, then foo-2.0 comes to stable, after some point we remove foo-1.0 |
| 27 |
> > from the tree. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Grub2 is not really a new version, it's a different product with different |
| 30 |
> use cases. I don't use grub-0 to boot any of my gentoo boxes but I use it |
| 31 |
> for |
| 32 |
> some embedded x86 projects so it's convenient to be able build it off the |
| 33 |
> tree. I remember trying grub2 on one of them a while back and IIRC it more |
| 34 |
> than doubled the size of the image. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Just my 2 cents worth. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> -- |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Fernando Rodriguez |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
Archives