On 06/24/2012 10:51 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Tobias Powalowski > <[email protected]> wrote: >> HI >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2012-06/msg00071.html >> grub2 will hit final status soon, should packages be renamed then? >> Any plan how to handle this. >> Imho we move grub-legacy to aur or at least extra then. >> >> Thanks >> greetings >> tpowa >> >> -- >> Tobias Powalowski >> Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) >> http://www.archlinux.org >> [email protected] >> >> > > I was about to post a similar message... > > Anyway, I was planning to drop support of grub1. There has been no > upstream for a long time and all newer features are patched in or > require additional patches. I don't see a need to have it in [extra] > as grub-legacy. No problem uploading it to AUR so people can continue > to use it if they want, although you need i686 to build it so that > could be the only reason to keep it in [extra] for a bit... > > I've seen no major breakages in grub2 since beta2 iirc. Upstream > development has been going towards stability in recent betas and I > would consider it stable at the moment: there were no real bug reports > in the bugtracker for the last few months. > > I'd like to move 2.00 to [core] via [testing] when it is released, > letting the grub-bios (atm grub2-bios) replace the old grub package. > Adding an install message and a news item is probably a good idea at > the time. >
Do not replace grub. Most users won't read the pacman output and the configuration syntax was changed, resulting in a non booting system. Let them move to grub-bios. > I'll be pushing grub2 rc1 to [testing] in a moment if you want to give > it a try. Final 2.00 release should be in one of the next days. > > Cheers, > Ronald > -- Ionuț
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
