On Monday 06 April 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting William Pitcock (firstname.lastname@example.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. Anyone remember the fairly big upset when lilo was removed from testing around D-I Lenny Beta2? > 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 ? 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. Cheers, FJP  "goal" is a somewhat strange term here...
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.