[aur-general] delete grub-gfx
rafael.f.f1 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 29 15:51:12 EDT 2011
2011/7/29 KESHAV P.R. <skodabenz at gmail.com>
> 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.
You've got a good, but while grub-legacy is called 'grub' in Archlinux
Official repository, I see no need for changing grub-gfx name. If I see
grub2, grub and grub-gfx, I would think that grub-gfx have different version
When/If 'grub' maintainer decide to change it to grub-legacy, I will vote
favorable to change name.
That's only my 2 cents, anyway. :)
More information about the aur-general