Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the bootloader LILO
----- "Ian Jackson" <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#587886: future of maintaining of the
> bootloader LILO"):
> > I've caught up on all of this now. I'm not sure I quite understand
> > the position of the current lilo maintainers. In
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/05/msg00769.html
> > William writes:
> >
> > it has pretty much been determined that kernel sizes have crossed
> the
> > line past where lilo can reliably determine the payload size.
> >
> > William, to what are you referring ? Can you provide a bug number
> ?
> > William and Matt: Can you confirm that you still intend to remove
> lilo
> > from squeeze ?
>
> I've had private email exchanges with Matt (the other existing lilo
> maintainer) and Joachim.
>
> Matt and Joachim tell me that are keen to keep lilo in Debian and to
> maintain it. However due to disagreements with his co-maintainer
> Matt
> has been having difficulty getting sponsorship for uploads.
>
> William, are you be happy for Joachim to join the maintainer list for
> lilo ? What is your current view about the future of lilo ? In
> particular, is it appropriate for sponsors to sponsor uploads of new
> versions from Matt and Joachim ?
It is not appropriate at this time, Matt is not qualified to maintain the
package, and Joachim is just blindly applying patches and calling it a
new version.
I am not convinced that either actually know how lilo works.
Specifically, LILO 23.0 is a dud on my old Pentium 2 machine while 22.8
is not. 23.0 triple-faults in the second stage boot process causing a
reboot loop.
Further, I am not even convinced that they are testing their releases
on machines that run LILO.
William
Reply to: