On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió: >>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800 >>> Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> > On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: >>> > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100 >>> > > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are >>> > >> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near >>> > >> stabilization)? >>> > >> >>> > >> I have read hardmask message but it simply explains that it's masked >>> > >> for >>> > >> testing purposes :-/ >>> > > >>> > > Grub is the only blocker. I don't want to unmask something that makes >>> > > people's systems unbootable. >>> > > >>> > > I'm also out of ideas and open to suggestions. >>> > >>> > Stabilize grub-1.99, and modify the grub-0.9x ebuilds to die if they >>> > can't find a supported compiler. >>> >>> What's the state of 1.99? I know someone was working on it recently. We'd >>> also have to update the handbooks. I think it could be several months of >>> work to get it ready, and I'd like to unmask 4.6 last September. >>> >>> >> >> As looks like fixing old grub is far away because nobody know what is >> causing that issues, probably trying to get grub-1.99 ready for >> stabilization would be interesting (we will need to do that sooner or >> later anyway) > > Ubuntu has used grub2 for 3 years, I am considering working on making > it stable for at least x86 / amd64. > > -A >
FYI, the code freeze for Grub 2.00 was announced today. It might be better to target that at this point. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2012-02/msg00147.html
