On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Fernando Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/04/2016 06:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > This would actually be another reason to get rid of grub-0, if it can't > > build on one of our profiles, it will more than likely never be fixed > > upstream because they are now focused on grub-2.x. > > grub-0 is 32-bit software. You could build it without multilib but you need > the dependencies like any other package (and link them statically). And > there > are other packages on the tree that don't build on all profiles. > USE="abi_x86_32" ? >> Another alternative would be simply hard-masking it, but leaving it in > >> place for those who want it. It does still work, and I see no evidence > >> we're removing it due to security issues or breakage. > > > > We are removing it because upstream has a new version of the software > > and has moved on from this one. For most packages, if foo-1.0 is > > stable, then foo-2.0 comes to stable, after some point we remove foo-1.0 > > from the tree. > > Grub2 is not really a new version, it's a different product with different > use cases. I don't use grub-0 to boot any of my gentoo boxes but I use it > for > some embedded x86 projects so it's convenient to be able build it off the > tree. I remember trying grub2 on one of them a while back and IIRC it more > than doubled the size of the image. > > Just my 2 cents worth. > > -- > > Fernando Rodriguez > >
