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