Quoting Frans Pop (firstname.lastname@example.org): > I'm not sure where the original mail comes from, but IMO this should be From lilo package BTS which I was tracking for l10n purposes. So I just happened to notice William's answer to a bug report and thought it would be good for this to be discussed in public. Clearly, I didn't choose the right place to discuss and the topic has wider implications than just D-I, as the followups show. Good thing that you made the discussion wider. > > Don't we have some install paths that still depend on LILO? > > Yes: /boot on LVM is the main one. > > > Anyway, even if we don't, I think we should track that lilo removal > > and coordinate with William, in order to stop providing > > lilo-installer. > > > > And, I think this should be mentioned as a release goal (dropping > > lilo). Either high priority if we have install paths depending on > > lilo, or normal priority otherwise. > > D-I release goal or Debian release goal ? Clearly Debian release "goal". > IMO the latter could well be justified as there will also need to be some > kind of upgrade strategy for existing users that does not make > uncontrolled changes on their hard disk or loses them the ability to boot > alternative OSes on dual (or multi) boot systems. Which might be very tricky.... But, as William mentioned in his original mail, upstream activity seems to be low so we need to figure out if we want to keep yet another unmaintained software in Debian. What later puzzled me if the mention in non collaboratve upstream *if we don't drop Debian patches*. That's not exactly inactive upstream so it would be good to clarify the situation of lilo upstream.
Description: Digital signature