Re: lilo about to be dropped?
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 17:26 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Monday 06 April 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
> >> Quoting William Pitcock (nenolod@dereferenced.org):
> >>> lilo is due for removal anyway due to being unmaintained upstream and
> >>> the widespread availability of alternatives.
> >
> > I think that last part is debatable.
> >
> >>> I do not have time to manage the removal at this point, but it will
> >>> be gone by June.
> >
> > Has the package already been offered for adoption? Preferably with an
> > overview of its current (upstream) status and main issues. I'd say that
> > if there's anybody willing to (actively) maintain it, it should not be
> > removed.
> >
> >> This is a heads up mail for the D-I team.
> >
> > I'm not sure where the original mail comes from, but IMO this should be
> > discussed on d-devel, especially since it impacts more than just D-I. I
> > suspect there are quite a few packages that make some sort of provisions
> > for lilo.
> > There are also significant numbers of people still using lilo for, at
> > least for them, very good reasons.
>
> I totally agree.
> But I think that lilo package description must be changed, warning new
> users that lilo have several limits (thus not all kernel within debian
> are bootable with lilo).
>
> Maybe we could also require grub{,2} when installing lilo (chained
> as other in lilo, for emergency, new debian kernel policies, etc),
> but I don't know if it is feasible (e.g. when lilo is not in MBR).
chainloader will work with lilo, but lilo is only kept around for the
people who are crazy and booting off LVMs as it is.
Booting off LVMs is supported directly by grub2 and ext2linux could
probably be modified to support it in a much better way than lilo does
it, so this is not really a compelling argument for keeping it.
William
Reply to: