On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:35:25 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

On 11/20/2010 12:27 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

...

* move grub1 to extra/multilib and remove it from base group

grub1 should at least kept in extra to ensure that older installers are working. multilib repo is not enabled by default on x86_64 systems

Well afaik aif cannot handle extlinux anyway. So this is just talking about the future. Of course I don't want to break our current netinstall iso. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:42:28 +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:

Am Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:27:35 +0100 schrieb Pierre Schmitz :

...

What do you think about this? At some point it might not be sane/possible to keep grub1 as our default boot loader.

I'm using grub-legacy on all my systems. I dislike the option to force everybody to use a separate ext* boot partition.

Don't get me wrong here. I underlined that I wont force anyone to do anything. So one should still be able to use grub and it should also be kept on the install CD.

I prefer to keep grub-legacy that is still maintained by the distributions (see heavy Fedora patching) our default boot loader until we think we can replace it with grub(2). Maybe it's already ready for this after the next minor testing releae. It should already be in good state since Ubuntu uses it as the default loader.

Well, it should be clear that grub1 is a dead end; no matter how much you patch it. I am also not talking about doing something about this tomorrow but some day in the future. The day when we are forced to think about grub1 by something else (read as replacing the default not the package). And in that case I think extlinux is the more simple solution compared to grub2. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre