[arch-dev-public] grub/grub2 final

newer
[arch-dev-public] Signoff report...

older
[arch-dev-public] Signoff report...

Tobias Powalowski

24 Jun 2012 24 Jun '12

7:19 p.m.

HI https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2012-06/msg00071.html grub2 will hit final status soon, should packages be renamed then? Any plan how to handle this. Imho we move grub-legacy to aur or at least extra then. Thanks greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

Attachments:

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 554 bytes)

Show replies by date

Ronald van Haren

24 Jun 24 Jun

7:51 p.m.

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...

HI https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2012-06/msg00071.html grub2 will hit final status soon, should packages be renamed then? Any plan how to handle this. Imho we move grub-legacy to aur or at least extra then.

Thanks greetings tpowa

-- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

I was about to post a similar message... Anyway, I was planning to drop support of grub1. There has been no upstream for a long time and all newer features are patched in or require additional patches. I don't see a need to have it in [extra] as grub-legacy. No problem uploading it to AUR so people can continue to use it if they want, although you need i686 to build it so that could be the only reason to keep it in [extra] for a bit... I've seen no major breakages in grub2 since beta2 iirc. Upstream development has been going towards stability in recent betas and I would consider it stable at the moment: there were no real bug reports in the bugtracker for the last few months. I'd like to move 2.00 to [core] via [testing] when it is released, letting the grub-bios (atm grub2-bios) replace the old grub package. Adding an install message and a news item is probably a good idea at the time. I'll be pushing grub2 rc1 to [testing] in a moment if you want to give it a try. Final 2.00 release should be in one of the next days. Cheers, Ronald

Ionut Biru

8:04 p.m.

On 06/24/2012 10:51 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...
HI https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2012-06/msg00071.html grub2 will hit final status soon, should packages be renamed then? Any plan how to handle this. Imho we move grub-legacy to aur or at least extra then.

Thanks greetings tpowa

-- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

I was about to post a similar message...

Anyway, I was planning to drop support of grub1. There has been no upstream for a long time and all newer features are patched in or require additional patches. I don't see a need to have it in [extra] as grub-legacy. No problem uploading it to AUR so people can continue to use it if they want, although you need i686 to build it so that could be the only reason to keep it in [extra] for a bit...

I've seen no major breakages in grub2 since beta2 iirc. Upstream development has been going towards stability in recent betas and I would consider it stable at the moment: there were no real bug reports in the bugtracker for the last few months.

I'd like to move 2.00 to [core] via [testing] when it is released, letting the grub-bios (atm grub2-bios) replace the old grub package. Adding an install message and a news item is probably a good idea at the time.

Do not replace grub. Most users won't read the pacman output and the configuration syntax was changed, resulting in a non booting system. Let them move to grub-bios.

...

I'll be pushing grub2 rc1 to [testing] in a moment if you want to give it a try. Final 2.00 release should be in one of the next days.

Cheers, Ronald

-- Ionuț

Ronald van Haren

8:10 p.m.

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:

...

On 06/24/2012 10:51 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Tobias Powalowski wrote:

...
HI https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2012-06/msg00071.html grub2 will hit final status soon, should packages be renamed then? Any plan how to handle this. Imho we move grub-legacy to aur or at least extra then.

Thanks greetings tpowa

-- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org

I was about to post a similar message...

Anyway, I was planning to drop support of grub1. There has been no upstream for a long time and all newer features are patched in or require additional patches. I don't see a need to have it in [extra] as grub-legacy. No problem uploading it to AUR so people can continue to use it if they want, although you need i686 to build it so that could be the only reason to keep it in [extra] for a bit...

I've seen no major breakages in grub2 since beta2 iirc. Upstream development has been going towards stability in recent betas and I would consider it stable at the moment: there were no real bug reports in the bugtracker for the last few months.

I'd like to move 2.00 to [core] via [testing] when it is released, letting the grub-bios (atm grub2-bios) replace the old grub package. Adding an install message and a news item is probably a good idea at the time.

Do not replace grub. Most users won't read the pacman output and the configuration syntax was changed, resulting in a non booting system.

Let them move to grub-bios.

...
I'll be pushing grub2 rc1 to [testing] in a moment if you want to give it a try. Final 2.00 release should be in one of the next days.

Cheers, Ronald

-- Ionuț

Well sure, but grub-bios will be part of the grub group. Won't it automatically replace the grub package with the group in that case? Ronald

Ionut Biru

8:23 p.m.

On 06/24/2012 11:10 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...

...
...
I'd like to move 2.00 to [core] via [testing] when it is released, letting the grub-bios (atm grub2-bios) replace the old grub package. Adding an install message and a news item is probably a good idea at the time.

Do not replace grub. Most users won't read the pacman output and the configuration syntax was changed, resulting in a non booting system.

Let them move to grub-bios.

...

Well sure, but grub-bios will be part of the grub group. Won't it automatically replace the grub package with the group in that case?

Ronald

I don't believe that pacman replaces a package with a group. Do we really need a group called grub? What's the use case for that? -- Ionuț

Ronald van Haren

8:37 p.m.

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:

...

On 06/24/2012 11:10 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...
...
...
I'd like to move 2.00 to [core] via [testing] when it is released, letting the grub-bios (atm grub2-bios) replace the old grub package. Adding an install message and a news item is probably a good idea at the time.

Do not replace grub. Most users won't read the pacman output and the configuration syntax was changed, resulting in a non booting system.

Let them move to grub-bios.

...
Well sure, but grub-bios will be part of the grub group. Won't it automatically replace the grub package with the group in that case?

Ronald

I don't believe that pacman replaces a package with a group. Do we really need a group called grub? What's the use case for that?

-- Ionuț

sorry I meant pkgbase Ronald

Ionut Biru

8:54 p.m.

On 06/24/2012 11:37 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:

...
On 06/24/2012 11:10 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...
...
...
I'd like to move 2.00 to [core] via [testing] when it is released, letting the grub-bios (atm grub2-bios) replace the old grub package. Adding an install message and a news item is probably a good idea at the time.

Do not replace grub. Most users won't read the pacman output and the configuration syntax was changed, resulting in a non booting system.

Let them move to grub-bios.

...
Well sure, but grub-bios will be part of the grub group. Won't it automatically replace the grub package with the group in that case?

Ronald

I don't believe that pacman replaces a package with a group. Do we really need a group called grub? What's the use case for that?

-- Ionuț

sorry I meant pkgbase

Ronald

it's fine to have pkgbase=grub. -- Ionuț

Eric Bélanger

9:10 p.m.

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:

...

On 06/24/2012 11:37 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:

...
On 06/24/2012 11:10 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...
...
...
I'd like to move 2.00 to [core] via [testing] when it is released, letting the grub-bios (atm grub2-bios) replace the old grub package. Adding an install message and a news item is probably a good idea at the time.

Do not replace grub. Most users won't read the pacman output and the configuration syntax was changed, resulting in a non booting system.

Let them move to grub-bios.

...
Well sure, but grub-bios will be part of the grub group. Won't it automatically replace the grub package with the group in that case?

Ronald

I don't believe that pacman replaces a package with a group. Do we really need a group called grub? What's the use case for that?

-- Ionuț

sorry I meant pkgbase

Ronald

it's fine to have pkgbase=grub.

I'm not sure but I think that the devtools and/or dbscripts expects PKGBUILDs to be in $pkgbase/trunk/ in the svn repo. If that is correct, you can't have both a grub package and a grub pkgbase, unless they are provided by the same PKGBUILD.

...

-- Ionuț

Pierre Schmitz

9:30 p.m.

Am 24.06.2012 22:54, schrieb Ionut Biru:

...

On 06/24/2012 11:37 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...
sorry I meant pkgbase

Ronald

it's fine to have pkgbase=grub.

I fear it's not as grub already has this pkgbase. They have to be unique and also refer to their name in the svn repo. pacman itself does not care about pkgbase though. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com

Ronald van Haren

28 Jun 28 Jun

6:12 p.m.

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

...

Am 24.06.2012 22:54, schrieb Ionut Biru:

...
On 06/24/2012 11:37 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...
sorry I meant pkgbase

Ronald

it's fine to have pkgbase=grub.

I fear it's not as grub already has this pkgbase. They have to be unique and also refer to their name in the svn repo. pacman itself does not care about pkgbase though.

Greetings,

Pierre

-- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com

It seems to work with pkgbase=grub, I didn't encounter any problems pushing it to gerolde and into [testing].

...

From my limited testing locally the package leaves grub alone when it is installed, and replaces the grub2 packages like expected. So everything seems to be working.

Please test and report any problems. I'll move the old grub package as grub-legacy into AUR when this moves to [core] and also remove the grub2* packages at that time. I'll make a draft for a frontpage news in one of the next few days before I move it to [core]. Cheers, Ronald

4313

Age (days ago)

4317

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

9 comments

5 participants

participants (5)

Eric Bélanger
Ionut Biru
Pierre Schmitz
Ronald van Haren
Tobias Powalowski