[coreboot] Proposed overhaul of the GRUB2 wiki page
rmh at aybabtu.com
Tue Sep 9 23:12:38 CEST 2008
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:34:49PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 09.09.2008 22:14, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 09:42:18PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >> GRUB legacy is also no longer maintained, yet nobody suggests purging
> >> information about it.
> > GRUB Legacy is maintained. I know, because I maintain it myself in Debian.
> OK. The official GNU GRUB site states: "GRUB Legacy
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/grub-legacy.en.html> is no longer
> being developed." I thought that also implies it is no longer
> maintained. And with 4 months on average between commits on mainline
> GRUB legacy, it is less maintained than the coreboot GRUB2 fork.
> Well, these are the maintained Debian and Ubuntu forks of GRUB legacy.
> I'm interested in upstream and that has 4 months on average between commits.
Yes, that is correct. The versions that are maintained are the "forks" in
distributions, which is what end users run.
Since you seem to be interested in comparing our current situation with GRUB
Legacy, I'd like to point you at what the main GRUB website reads:
"Currently under development, GRUB 2, has replaced what was formerly known
as GRUB (i.e. version 0.9x), which has, in turn, become GRUB Legacy."
This is how we cathegorize our own code when we consider that it is no longer
being developed. But I don't pretend you should take this as reference and
use the same (or similar) wording for official GRUB & Coresystems GRUB, it is
only you who insisted in doing this comparison.
> > No objection from me, as long as a contact address for bug reports and support
> > is provided. If there's no explanation on where to send bug reports, people
> > will assume it's fine to contact GRUB authors, and grub-devel doesn't want the
> > hot potato.
> OK, then simply add a line to the coreboot GRUB2 wiki page stating that
What do we put as contact address for bug reports & support?
> and everyone is happy.
When I said "No objection from me" I was repliing to something specific:
"So deleting the existing text is not an option right now.". That is, no
objection to keeping the text. This doesn't imply that just keeping the
text makes everyone happy. Even if you will take care of handling bug
reports, the wiki still points users to an unmaintained version of GRUB.
As I said before, I believe this is damaging the GRUB brand.
> you're willing to declare upstream GRUB legacy as "abandoned", please
> wait with declaring the coreboot fork of GRUB2 as abandoned until [...]
As a matter of fact, I am.
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
More information about the coreboot