Re: lilo about to be dropped?
No this means I take over the package try to cou ntact upstream etc
and fyi i do know Intel X86 ASM (not well) but i learn fast as you
know. I just think a "This package is deprecated and may be removed at
any time" clause in the package desc is the best way to go here that
way the people who use it as a fallback when GRUB doesn't work (self
included) or otherwise can still continue to use it. I'm just not
comfortable dropping it when it seems to work ok for most of the
people who need to use it. cate dud just state that lilo worked for
him. Why not let me have it for now and just let things flow as they
will. Belive me i'm not about to let another XMMS style nightmare
happen
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:21 PM, William Pitcock
<nenolod@sacredspiral.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 11:05 -0400, Matt Arnold wrote:
>> As the silent co-maintainer of lilo I believe I should now voice my
>> thoughts on this
>>
>> I too believe that lilo should belive that lilo should be remove *at
>> some point* but now is not the time. So I restate my willingness to
>> take over fully publicly. Upstream made a release of a bootloader in
>> 2007 a bootloader is quite different from an internet facing service
>> or a desktop app, so it is possible that upstream hasn't made a
>> release because they haven't felt a need to existed. From this thread
>> there still appears to be use cases for lilo and it seems to be
>> meeting the needs of the people that need it. Unless there is a
>> security hole or show stopping bug that makes the package totally
>> unusable why remove it. There will eventually be that case and when
>> such a time comes we will reexamine the issue but why fix what is
>> working for people. Again I will take over the package if you
>> (nenolod) don't want it anymore. I An RM seems overkill when a line in
>> the package description will do nicely
>>
>
> Does this mean that you will become lilo upstream as well? Are you
> *qualified* to become lilo upstream? Do you know assembly language?
> (tip: most of the important parts are assembly language.)
>
> If not, then stop talking now. Anything less is unhealthy as it will
> just become another XMMS with lots of patches ontop of it to fix bugs.
>
> William
>
>
Reply to: