On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 11:05 -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > As the silent co-maintainer of lilo I believe I should now voice my > thoughts on this > > I too believe that lilo should belive that lilo should be remove *at > some point* but now is not the time. So I restate my willingness to > take over fully publicly. Upstream made a release of a bootloader in > 2007 a bootloader is quite different from an internet facing service > or a desktop app, so it is possible that upstream hasn't made a > release because they haven't felt a need to existed. From this thread > there still appears to be use cases for lilo and it seems to be > meeting the needs of the people that need it. Unless there is a > security hole or show stopping bug that makes the package totally > unusable why remove it. There will eventually be that case and when > such a time comes we will reexamine the issue but why fix what is > working for people. Again I will take over the package if you > (nenolod) don't want it anymore. I An RM seems overkill when a line in > the package description will do nicely > Does this mean that you will become lilo upstream as well? Are you *qualified* to become lilo upstream? Do you know assembly language? (tip: most of the important parts are assembly language.) If not, then stop talking now. Anything less is unhealthy as it will just become another XMMS with lots of patches ontop of it to fix bugs. William
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part