On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 13:06 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:21 PM, William Pitcock > <nenolod@sacredspiral.co.uk> wrote: > > Lilo upstream is dead (no release in quite a while), but the lilo > > maintainer has also been seen as saying in various mailing lists etc, > > that since Debian patches lilo that he has no interest in helping to fix > > problems in our version. > > Ok but you could try to push those patches upstream. This is how > grub has been improved and also parted. This works most of time. > > This way we "reduce" the amount of patches we keep in Debian > and also you could try to get in touch with other distros to share > the load and avoid reworking at same things. lilo is officially unmaintained now. The canonical website of lilo now points to a 404 error page, see http://lilo.go.dyndns.org/ . So at this point, our only option seems to be taking over upstream lilo maintainance ourselves (which could be a good thing in some ways, I am not denying that), or find a way to transition these use-cases to grub/grub2/extlinux. However, if we are to maintain lilo ourselves, then we need to flesh out exactly what usecases we're going to be using it for. I recommend if we go that route that we come up with a list of improvements that we want to see and get to hacking. If some of the people who like lilo a lot got around to helping with a fork, we could create a much less buggy bootloader than the current lilo. Alternatively, we can just leave it and let it become another XMMS. I don't like this solution very much. William
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part