Re: lilo about to be dropped?
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:05:43AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 08:53 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:13:32AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> > > I agree here too. I think these install paths could be replaced by
> > > ext2linux as well, if that is what is needed to be done.
> > And why in the world is it useful to transition these use cases to ext2linux
> > when we already have a lilo package that suits these needs perfectly well?
> Because it does not.
That's not for you to say. There are clearly a large number of users who
are using lilo (3388 who also enable popcon - and if they're running popcon,
I guess that means lilo is working for them what with that whole booting
thing). So lilo *is* meeting the needs of these users, notwithstanding your
dissatisfaction with the use case coverage.
> The LVM support in LILO is hideously broken, so these arguments do not
> really matter. It only works in certain conditions and is known to break
> horribly if you have say, a kernel spanning multiple PVs.
They matter to the users who are *using* lilo this way, whether or not you
happen to find the implementation to your liking.
I don't use lilo. I have gradually transitioned all my old installs over to
grub, delayed only by the need to accomodate the risks of downtime. That
doesn't mean I think it's acceptable to drop lilo on the floor for squeeze,
when it's still being offered as an installation option for *two* supported
Debian releases, in some cases by default, and there doesn't appear to be an
actual transition plan for those users who currently have lilo installed,
whether that's by necessity or choice.
> Only a true idiot boots off an LVM volume anyway, since there is risk of
> metadata corruption, etc.
Bullshit.
> But, you will. Infact, you told me yesterday on IRC that your intention
> is to "take over lilo maintenance to score points with DDs" and that you
> just "needed it for a few months". This isn't the right issue to "score
> points" on, as lack of proper maintenance is WORSE than not having it in
> Debian at all.
No - *bad* maintenance is worse than not having it in Debian at all. But
having the package in Debian on autopilot is *better* than leaving those
currently using it out in the cold, or giving them a poorly-implemented
transition.
Insisting that we drop lilo from the archive before any work has been done
to make a transition to grub{1,2} possible is putting the cart before the
horse.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: