[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Bug#588839: pv-grub removed ?

Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 02:49 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: 
>> Philipp Kern wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 03:56:13PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>>> Now, I hope someone from the release team will answer this: if we build
>>>> a new xen-pv-grub package, will it be accepted by the RT, even if we are
>>>> late, as the lack of pv-grub in the xen-utils can be considered a
>>>> regression in Squeeze (as Lenny had the feature)?
>>> AFAICS there was no pv-grub in Lenny:
>>> pkern@franck:~/ftp/ftp/dists/lenny$ zgrep pv-grub Contents-amd64.gz Contents-i386.gz
>>> pkern@franck:~/ftp/ftp/dists/lenny$
>>> If this is the case, there's no regression.  Furthermore this is a bug of
>>> severity:wishlist, so no, it would be too late for this.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Philipp Kern
>> Considering that here:
>> http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/PvGrub
>> it's written that PvGrub is replacing pygrub,
> Replacing is rather strong. They serve similar purposes but its entirely
> up to user preference and/or requirements which one is used. They
> certainly aren't mutually exclusive or anything like that and pygrub is
> not going away upstream any time soon.

Replacing isn't my wording. Should the wiki be changed?

What's the advantages/differences of pv-grub compared to pygrub then?
What is the point in having 2 p*grub that do the same thing?

>> and that in Lenny (unless there's still pygrub in Squeeze,
> pygrub _is_ in squeeze:
> $ dpkg -S /usr/lib/xen-*/bin/pygrub
> xen-utils-4.0: /usr/lib/xen-4.0/bin/pygrub
> I haven't seen any suggestion, from Bastian or otherwise, that it will
> be removed.
> I don't believe pvgrub was in Lenny.
> Ian.

Cool, thanks for clarifying this. I run outdated self-backported version
of Bastian's packages (shame on me...), which is why I wasn't sure.


Reply to: