Re: lilo removal in squeeze (or, "please test grub2")
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Stephan Seitz
<stse+debian@fsing.rootsland.net> wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:29:15AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>>
>> Having /boot on a separate partition for robustness, security or
>> advanced features (encrypted LVM and stuff) is one thing, but having it
>> because the default bootloader doesn't support current (ext4) and future
>> (btrfs) filesystems seems like a hack to me.
>
> But I don’t think that everyone will switch to ext4 with the next release,
> even if they install new systems. Does the squeeze installer support ext4 or
> is this the new filesystem if you don’t choose one?
>
> Besides we are not talking about having grub1 for all eternity. If grub2
> will support all features of grub1, we can replace the bootloader in squeeze
> + 1.
>
>> software (Stephen's case), but we have to face it:
>> * LILO is not developed anymore
>> * Grub1 is not developed anymore
>
> Yes, but for now both bootloader are still working. They may not support
> ext4, but they do support things grub2 doesn’t.
>
>> Unless there are people interested in further developing those code
>> bases they will be gone sooner or later. And my feeling (as a
>
> Yes, but in the time for squeeze + 1, grub2 may get all missing features
> from grub1. Then we can at least through away grub1.
I've installed Squeeze a few times (from the bcard and netinst isos);
ext4 is available but there is no default. Maybe the larger isos
default to ext4 like Ubuntu and Fedora.
Anyway, if Debian wanted to have grub1 support ext4, it would "simply"
have to apply whatever patch Fedora has...
I can't think of a grub1 feature that grub2 doesn't have except the
howmany variable - and it doesn't look like it will be re-introduced.
On grub-devel, the idea was trashed (and, to a certain extent,
misunderstood). And in the Debian bug pages, the answer was "we don't
want to deviate from upstream" even though the grub1 howmany variable
was a Debian enhancement.
Reply to: