Re: lilo.conf
> Also have you considered using the new testing release? Testing has packages
> that have been unchanged in unstable for 2 weeks. Count on the fact that the
> lilo package will be changed more often than that until most people agree
> that it's good enough. This means that it won't be in testing until these
> issues are all resolved.
This in my opinion highlights the necessity and brains behind the new
system. Myself, like most people, have gotten lulled over the years that
"unstable" really means "stable but with new versions of software
instead of archaic ones".
I must admit I was taken slightly aback by the lack of warning given when
conducting the lilo update. I've seen some much more blatant warnings in
my time, and I thought something of this nature required a bit more notice
than it gave, but, thats just my opinion. In the end I overwrote the new
lilo.conf with my old one, which was the lilo.conf.old, but hey, that
decision is mine to make.
I guess I find things like the PHP4 packages in unstable having multiple
syntax errors in postinst scripts over about 5 separate versions in a
fortnight more troubling than [what i thought was] a lack of information
during install about lilo. Admittedly I don't subscribe to debian-devel,
but I don't feel that should be a "requirement" of running unstable.
At the end of the day, good luck in your quests to improve lilo. And when
put into perspective, lilo.conf is probably something that, if you are
genuinely concerned about, should be backed up appropriately, thus
eliminating the need for this argument in the first place.
Cheers,
Corey Popelier
Reply to: