Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")
I demand that William Pitcock may or may not have written...
> After some discussion about lilo on #debian-devel in IRC, it has pretty
> much been determined that kernel sizes have crossed the line past where
> lilo can reliably determine the payload size.
Working fine here on i386, whether booting a stock kernel (testing with
2.6.33 from experimental) or a custom kernel. I've not checked a stock kernel
on amd64 for some time now, but I've seen no problems with my custom kernels
(which are all initrd-free).
[snip]
> This means that users should *test grub2 extensively* before Squeeze is
> released so that any issues can be resolved now.
Well... I recall an issue with the default boot menu item no. being left
untouched and, consequently, becoming out of sync with menu content as
kernels were added or removed, although that may just be grub1.
Still, it was enough of a reason to stick with lilo.
(However, I recall extlinux being mentioned when this last came up...)
> As for removal, the following things need to be done:
> (1) The release notes need to be updated to reflect that lilo is no
> longer a bootloader option;
> (2) The debian-installer team needs to remove the lilo-installer udeb;
> (3) The ftpmasters need to remove lilo from unstable (which will be done
> using the appropriate bug filing once the above steps are made);
Alternatively, document its limitations and bugs, and let it stay.
> (4) Users need to test grub2 now.
Need? I see no need...
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | back!
| + I say leave it for squeeze+∞ :-)
Drive must be A: or B:, 0:1
Reply to: