(Dropping d-release for this part of the discussion.) On Monday 16 June 2008, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > We still very regularly get installation reports where people use > > lilo rather than grub, so it must still have a fairly significant > > user base. I would say that the activity on the bug report shows the > > same. > > OTOH, aren't most of these choosing lilo over grub only doing so by > habit ? In some cases, probably. But as it requires some fairly specific actions in D-I, especially in the default mode, I would expect it to be a conscious choice in a lot of cases. I also remember a number of reports _requesting_ that we support installing lilo instead of grub... And see also some of the other replies in this thread. AFAICT there is still a "real" demand for lilo. And wasn't Linux (or free software if you prefer) at least partly about choice anyway? AFAICT from a quick browse through the BR, the issue is only that the size of the initrd as generated by default by initramfs-tools with 2.6.25 has grown too large for lilo. Does this mean that server setups that do not use an initrd at all or that have small, targeted initrds should no longer be allowed to use lilo? Why not add a size check in lilo that just loudly bails out if the initrd is too large? As lilo has to be rerun anyway, that would at least inform users that there is a problem at kernel installation time instead of on the first reboot and they get a chance to correct things.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.