Ronald van Haren
pressh at gmail.com
Wed Dec 3 12:26:38 EST 2008
On 12/3/08, Andreas Radke <a.radke at arcor.de> wrote:
> Have you tried to compile it on x86_64? I highly doubt it can't be
sure I tried but it did not work. From quite a bit googling I found
that all distros who include grub2 use either a statically compiled
one or use a multilib environment.
But please, be my guess and prove I'm wrong.
> I'm subscribed to the grub development list for a long time and so far
> I would not expect any usable release before 2010 - so why do we put
> this into extra? Only because 2 devs find it cool to have it? Why not
> maintain it in AUR until it becomes late beta state and watch the
> usual voting procedure?
AFAIK grub-legacy is not able to boot from ext4 ?
> To me it's not ready and worth sitting in extra. One exception I could
> imagine: call it grub-devel. That's what it is. calling it grub2 in
> extra implies to me it to be the stable successor of grub(-legacy). and
> that's not true.
> I hope it's not to late for serious concerns.
well it actually is a bit late as it is already in the repo now. As
far as I understand grub2 is the codename of the next generation grub.
Once it is stable it will be renamed to grub upstream.
Besides that, the install message clearly states that it is still in
IMO renaming it grub-devel again is not needed, but I don't care too
much how it is called. It won't appear on anyones machine all of a
sudden, everyone is free to use it, and if they choose to ignore the
warning they should know what they are doing.
More information about the arch-dev-public