From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E5F3138330 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:00:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D3ACE0BB4; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCFC7E0B9C for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 21:59:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [100.42.103.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: williamh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34BEA340DB5 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 21:59:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:59:33 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo development Subject: [gentoo-dev] rfc: the demise of grub:0 Message-ID: <20161003215933.GA28448@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo development Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Archives-Salt: 081ccabe-6d69-4327-a62f-657175c163dd X-Archives-Hash: a8fea99d8398543e6a9296e2dbc35a2c --ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline All, I want to look into removing grub:0 from the tree; here are my thoughts on why it should go. - the handbook doesn't document grub:0; we officially only support grub:2. - There are multiple bugs open against grub:0 (15 at my last count). A number of these as I understand it are because of custom patches we apply. - grub:0 can't boot a nomultilib system, so we have to maintain a separate package (grub-static) specifically for that setup. - Removing grub:0 from the tree doesn't stop you from using it. If people really want it I will place it in the graveyard overlay. - We have custom patches for grub:0, which will never go upstream. - grub:0 is dead upstream. They have not done any work on it in years. - The only real problem with grub:2 has to do with pperception. Yes, their documentation has a strong preference toward using their configuration script (grub-mkconfig) to generate your grub.cfg, but this is not required. So, I want to make a plan to lastrite grub:0 and grub-static. I'm thinking, in about a week, p.mask grub:0 along with grub-static and send out a lastrites msg with a 30 day removal notice. If there any technical objections to this, let me know what they are. Thanks, William --ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAlfy1L4ACgkQblQW9DDEZThN7ACdG4JYFP4enqTxbUWuo5v+meR1 hG4An28jceiQvKFjgeA+WsVHYVtgGsx0 =8QCR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv--