Re: GRUB maintainership

[Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@trick.fig.org>]

Hi!

>>>>> Erich Boleyn writes:

 >> It sure does.  It's not self-consistent.  But we have all been so
 >> scarred already by the irrational horrors perpetrated on us by the
 >> PC world that it's now more important to be consistent with the
 >> canonical inconsistency than to offer something self-consistent
 >> but inconsistent with the internal inconsistency of everything
 >> else.

 EB> That's a tongue-twister.  OK, I'll do it.  I'll even run my
 EB> proposal for the final disk-referencing syntax by these lists
 EB> (uhhh, in a few days).

For the record, it is the ``FreeBSD partitioning notation.''  They
developed it because theirs was the first system that had to deal
rationally with both DOS partitioning and BSD disklabels.

So, if you want to blame (or thank) somebody, blame (or thank)
FreeBSD.

 EB> More seriously, the most recent version of LILO that I have
 EB> doesn't appear to support this in the first sector at all.  Which
 EB> version are you talking about?  (or am I just dense?)

Note that Roland isn't talking about having his boot loader appear
above 504MB, he's talking about his kernel.

I don't think anybody expects GRUB's stage1 to support LBA, etc, but
definitely the stage2 could (and should) support it.

-- 
 Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@fig.org> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/)
    Lovers of freedom, unite!     \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)
[Unfortunately, www.fig.org is broken.  Please stay tuned for details.]