[aur-general] delete grub-gfx
Ronald van Haren
pressh at gmail.com
Fri Jul 29 15:47:55 EDT 2011
Op 29 jul. 2011 21:39 schreef "KESHAV P.R." <skodabenz at gmail.com> het
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 00:58, Heiko Baums <lists at baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> > Am Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:47:03 +0530
> > schrieb "KESHAV P.R." <skodabenz at gmail.com>:
> >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 00:36, KESHAV P.R. <skodabenz at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> > Please delete grub-gfx
> >> > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2416 . Although it has
> >> > more votes, I modified the PKGBUILD a bit and replaced the package
> >> > with grub-legacy-gfx
> >> > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=50986 which builds fine
> >> > in x86_64 system with gcc-multilib. Thanks in advance.
> >> >
> >> > Regards.
> >> >
> >> > Keshav
> >> >
> >> Bump. anyone?
> > I would keep grub-gfx and remove grub-legacy-gfx. The package in [core]
> > is also called grub and not grub-legacy. And the source package is also
> > called grub-0.97.tar.gz and not grub-legacy-0.97.tar.gz. So grub-gfx is
> > the better name.
> > Heiko
> I mentioned "current" upstream naming. According to upstream,
> presently grub2 aka grub 1.9x == grub and grub 0.97 == grub-legacy . I
> have also submittted a grub-legacy PKGBUILD to Allan for inclusion in
> official repo (grub itself may be removed from core repo, who knows).
> The source tarball name won't change upstream as it was generated
> years back, shortly before grub became grub-legacy.
> //offnote: I simply bumped this thread since its strange that no one
> replied to this mail for 4 days.
I have no plans to remove or rename grub from core anytime soon and I doubt
Allan will rename it without letting me know.
Grub2 is unstable. Sure so is grub1 officially but at least they don't
break it with every release.
More information about the aur-general