[arch-dev-public] Grub splashimage
Just throwing this out there - I'm not really stating my opinion on this, as I'm fairly neutral. Considering grub development is basically dead (waiting for grub2), what do you guys think about adding the splashimage patch to our official grub? See grub-gfx in community. I have used it for ages on my machine with no issues. It simply adds one config file variable. As I said, I'm neutral on this. It kinda flies in the face of the minimal patches idea, but grub is pretty much all patches these days.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Just throwing this out there - I'm not really stating my opinion on this, as I'm fairly neutral.
Considering grub development is basically dead (waiting for grub2), what do you guys think about adding the splashimage patch to our official grub? See grub-gfx in community. I have used it for ages on my machine with no issues. It simply adds one config file variable.
As I said, I'm neutral on this. It kinda flies in the face of the minimal patches idea, but grub is pretty much all patches these days.
Are we sure there are no negative effects to the patch (the patch is pretty big [1]) ? I don't have a strong opinion either, but I'm not sure if/why we should fix something which isn't a problem just because it looks nice, thereby possibly creating new problems ? Douglas, did you ever received messages / bug reports saying grub-gfx did not work for them? Ronald [1] http://repos.archlinux.org/viewvc.cgi/community/system/grub-gfx/grub-0.97-graphics.patch?view=markup&revision=1.1&root=community&pathrev=CURRENT
Am Montag 01 Dezember 2008 schrieb Ronald van Haren:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Just throwing this out there - I'm not really stating my opinion on this, as I'm fairly neutral.
Considering grub development is basically dead (waiting for grub2), what do you guys think about adding the splashimage patch to our official grub? See grub-gfx in community. I have used it for ages on my machine with no issues. It simply adds one config file variable.
As I said, I'm neutral on this. It kinda flies in the face of the minimal patches idea, but grub is pretty much all patches these days.
Are we sure there are no negative effects to the patch (the patch is pretty big [1]) ? I don't have a strong opinion either, but I'm not sure if/why we should fix something which isn't a problem just because it looks nice, thereby possibly creating new problems ?
Douglas, did you ever received messages / bug reports saying grub-gfx did not work for them?
Ronald
[1] http://repos.archlinux.org/viewvc.cgi/community/system/grub-gfx/grub-0.97-g raphics.patch?view=markup&revision=1.1&root=community&pathrev=CURRENT Hi
Imho if we add this, we could also add back gpt support, which was imho fixed by gebra and then removed completly again. just my 2 cents on this greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Imho if we add this, we could also add back gpt support, which was imho fixed by gebra and then removed completly again.
Assuming the patched version works fine for those that had issues in the past, I'd be for that. I know the GPT issue was contentious in the past, but in general hardware support is typically a good thing.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Imho if we add this, we could also add back gpt support, which was imho fixed by gebra and then removed completly again.
Assuming the patched version works fine for those that had issues in the past, I'd be for that. I know the GPT issue was contentious in the past, but in general hardware support is typically a good thing.
I guess I'll allow this, but only if we can set the pkgver on this package to triple digits. :) -Dan
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Imho if we add this, we could also add back gpt support, which was imho fixed by gebra and then removed completly again.
Assuming the patched version works fine for those that had issues in the past, I'd be for that. I know the GPT issue was contentious in the past, but in general hardware support is typically a good thing.
I guess I'll allow this, but only if we can set the pkgver on this package to triple digits. :)
Consider it a stress-test of pkgrel handling in pacman 8) grub-1.97-324234545
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Imho if we add this, we could also add back gpt support, which was imho fixed by gebra and then removed completly again.
Assuming the patched version works fine for those that had issues in the past, I'd be for that. I know the GPT issue was contentious in the past, but in general hardware support is typically a good thing.
I guess I'll allow this, but only if we can set the pkgver on this package to triple digits. :)
Consider it a stress-test of pkgrel handling in pacman 8) grub-1.97-324234545
Ha, I tried to make a joke and didn't even get it right. Of course I meant pkgrel. -Dan
Ronald van Haren escreveu:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Just throwing this out there - I'm not really stating my opinion on this, as I'm fairly neutral.
Considering grub development is basically dead (waiting for grub2), what do you guys think about adding the splashimage patch to our official grub? See grub-gfx in community. I have used it for ages on my machine with no issues. It simply adds one config file variable.
As I said, I'm neutral on this. It kinda flies in the face of the minimal patches idea, but grub is pretty much all patches these days.
Are we sure there are no negative effects to the patch (the patch is pretty big [1]) ? I don't have a strong opinion either, but I'm not sure if/why we should fix something which isn't a problem just because it looks nice, thereby possibly creating new problems ?
Douglas, did you ever received messages / bug reports saying grub-gfx did not work for them?
Ronald
Hi all, In fact just in its testing phase and i havent received emails about it in ages, so im totally up to send it to our repos. I have been using grub2 here and it is working great too, so i guess it will be a great release (when its is ready). Thanks -- Douglas Soares de Andrade -- Python, Django, Zope e Plone == Archlinux Trusted User and Developer - dsa ** Quote: Old programmers never die; they exit to a higher shell.
First of all, I don't like patching applications for fancy looks. I am okay with the usual black/blue grub look. Douglas Soares de Andrade schrieb:
I have been using grub2 here and it is working great too, so i guess it will be a great release (when its is ready).
Can you add a grub2 package to extra (and a howto)? This way we have a chance to test the stability of it and determine a time for the move, considering grub-legacy has been dead for long.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
First of all, I don't like patching applications for fancy looks. I am okay with the usual black/blue grub look.
Douglas Soares de Andrade schrieb:
I have been using grub2 here and it is working great too, so i guess it will be a great release (when its is ready).
Can you add a grub2 package to extra (and a howto)? This way we have a chance to test the stability of it and determine a time for the move, considering grub-legacy has been dead for long.
As I took maintainership over grub a couple of weeks ago, I guess I can put a grub2 package in testing. If it appears stable I can move it to extra after a oouple of weeks. If no objections are made I can do it between now and a couple of days. About the splash patch, maybe call a vote? Ronald
Ronald van Haren schrieb:
As I took maintainership over grub a couple of weeks ago, I guess I can put a grub2 package in testing. If it appears stable I can move it to extra after a oouple of weeks. If no objections are made I can do it between now and a couple of days.
There is no need to put it in testing if it's a new package. Just go to extra directly (just make sure the package name is different from the one in core).
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Ronald van Haren schrieb:
As I took maintainership over grub a couple of weeks ago, I guess I can put a grub2 package in testing. If it appears stable I can move it to extra after a oouple of weeks. If no objections are made I can do it between now and a couple of days.
There is no need to put it in testing if it's a new package. Just go to extra directly (just make sure the package name is different from the one in core).
Sure. Ronald, if you need something with the grub2 package just let me know. I have been using a bzr version, but i can help you with the latest release. Thanks for building the extra package. -- Douglas Soares de Andrade == Archlinux Trusted User and Developer - dsa ** Quote: Old programmers never die; they exit to a higher shell.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Ronald van Haren schrieb:
As I took maintainership over grub a couple of weeks ago, I guess I can put a grub2 package in testing. If it appears stable I can move it to extra after a oouple of weeks. If no objections are made I can do it between now and a couple of days.
There is no need to put it in testing if it's a new package. Just go to extra directly (just make sure the package name is different from the one in core).
Yeah, this is all you need to do, I'm just reinforcing what Thomas says. No one is suddenly going to get switched to grub2 by our addition of it to our repos, and I don't even know what "ready to move out of testing" means for a new package- you can't really have regressions. -Dan
You know, even slackware added a splashimage to lilo, Slackware did that! Now, if we don't then we will be very antiquate. Slakware did it! Unbelievable! just WOW! they modified something and branded it. OK end of my amusement. So yes, this is a good idea, I am getting tired of the blue and black grub. On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 11:13 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
Just throwing this out there - I'm not really stating my opinion on this, as I'm fairly neutral.
Considering grub development is basically dead (waiting for grub2), what do you guys think about adding the splashimage patch to our official grub? See grub-gfx in community. I have used it for ages on my machine with no issues. It simply adds one config file variable.
As I said, I'm neutral on this. It kinda flies in the face of the minimal patches idea, but grub is pretty much all patches these days.
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 11:13 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
As I said, I'm neutral on this. It kinda flies in the face of the minimal patches idea, but grub is pretty much all patches these days.
I would support this move as well, so long as: 1.) The splash can be disabled; or 2.) It doesn't cause weird output during shutdown/reboot I woud just as soon have a blank screen until the login prompt is ready--I already use 'quiet' on the kernel line just to suppress some of the noise. Though it *is* nice to fall back on when something goes wrong.
Thayer Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 11:13 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
As I said, I'm neutral on this. It kinda flies in the face of the minimal patches idea, but grub is pretty much all patches these days.
I would support this move as well, so long as:
1.) The splash can be disabled; or 2.) It doesn't cause weird output during shutdown/reboot
I woud just as soon have a blank screen until the login prompt is ready--I already use 'quiet' on the kernel line just to suppress some of the noise. Though it *is* nice to fall back on when something goes wrong.
-1 for the splash patch. If people want it, it's in community. +1 for grub2 in testing->extra.
Am Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:13:15 -0600 schrieb "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
Just throwing this out there - I'm not really stating my opinion on this, as I'm fairly neutral.
Considering grub development is basically dead (waiting for grub2), what do you guys think about adding the splashimage patch to our official grub? See grub-gfx in community. I have used it for ages on my machine with no issues. It simply adds one config file variable.
As I said, I'm neutral on this. It kinda flies in the face of the minimal patches idea, but grub is pretty much all patches these days.
urgh. I wonder why especially you raise that question. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Patching It's an essential core package where "eyecandy" patching is a strict NOGO to me. I see not one reason why it should be acceptable to break our rules here. So a big -1 from me here. -Andy
Am Mittwoch 03 Dezember 2008 18:18:57 schrieb Andreas Radke:
urgh. I wonder why especially you raise that question.
I think this was just a test. :-) However: This is the most useless patch ever. I wonder how long people are staying in the grub menu. (I use hiddenmeu) -- Pierre Schmitz Clemens-August-Straße 76 53115 Bonn Telefon 0228 9716608 Mobil 0160 95269831 Jabber pierre@jabber.archlinux.de WWW http://www.archlinux.de
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
urgh. I wonder why especially you raise that question.
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Patching
It's an essential core package where "eyecandy" patching is a strict NOGO to me. I see not one reason why it should be acceptable to break our rules here.
It's important to point out that I did NOT raise the question because I have a preference. I made it a point to say "this goes against our rules". I brought it up because: a) A handful of people have asked me about this recently b) I've used it for years with no issues c) The install iso uses it d) I just wanted to see what others thought Really. It's not a big deal. No hard feelings, ok?
Am Mittwoch 03 Dezember 2008 18:26:31 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
c) The install iso uses it
Yes, but it should use isolinux instead. Quite often grub is not able to boot the cd. (Ok, I don't think this is caused by the splash-patch) -- Pierre Schmitz Clemens-August-Straße 76 53115 Bonn Telefon 0228 9716608 Mobil 0160 95269831 Jabber pierre@jabber.archlinux.de WWW http://www.archlinux.de
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Am Mittwoch 03 Dezember 2008 18:26:31 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
c) The install iso uses it
Yes, but it should use isolinux instead. Quite often grub is not able to boot the cd. (Ok, I don't think this is caused by the splash-patch)
Yeah, working on that... working on lots of things, actually. sigh As always "it'll get done when it's done"
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 06:43:23PM +0100, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Am Mittwoch 03 Dezember 2008 18:26:31 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
c) The install iso uses it
Yes, but it should use isolinux instead. Quite often grub is not able to boot the cd. (Ok, I don't think this is caused by the splash-patch)
I'm not sure I'd say "often", it seems be more like "rarely", "if you're having a bad day", "if tux doesn't like you", "if there were a lot of solar flares recently", or something like that. All in all I think it works on the vast majority of systems, judging by the amount of bug reports. That isn't to say we shouldn't switch to isolinux, we definitely should, but the grub thing isn't nearly as big an issue as most people think it is. -S
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Simo Leone <simo@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 06:43:23PM +0100, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Am Mittwoch 03 Dezember 2008 18:26:31 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
c) The install iso uses it
Yes, but it should use isolinux instead. Quite often grub is not able to boot the cd. (Ok, I don't think this is caused by the splash-patch)
I'm not sure I'd say "often", it seems be more like "rarely", "if you're having a bad day", "if tux doesn't like you", "if there were a lot of solar flares recently", or something like that. All in all I think it works on the vast majority of systems, judging by the amount of bug reports.
That isn't to say we shouldn't switch to isolinux, we definitely should, but the grub thing isn't nearly as big an issue as most people think it is.
I plan to offer both, actually. On a personal level, I prefer a grub boot CD. I've always kept one around, and have used it a few times to repair borked bootloaders. However, these days I tend to keep a GRML cd handy more often
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
I plan to offer both, actually. On a personal level, I prefer a grub boot CD. I've always kept one around, and have used it a few times to repair borked bootloaders.
grub is easier to handle and it's easier to offer more options than with isolinux. Maybe grub2 already has an eltorito bootloader that is better than the old one? Maybe someone has analyzed the difference between grub and isolinux and fixed the grub eltorito loader?
participants (13)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Andreas Radke
-
Dan McGee
-
Douglas Andrade
-
Douglas Soares de Andrade
-
Eduardo Romero
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Ronald van Haren
-
Simo Leone
-
Thayer Williams
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tobias Powalowski
-
Tom K