Am Samstag 20 November 2010 schrieb Pierre Schmitz: > On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:42:28 +0100, Andreas Radke <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > Am Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:27:35 +0100 > > > > schrieb Pierre Schmitz <[email protected]>: > >> 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. - You will need grub2 in the future, for all fancy things like gpt, uefi and such things. - extlinux is good and small but doesn't offer any fancy things. - grub still works for most people, as lilo would do
-- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
