From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S03jY-0000AC-F1 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:23:16 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AE7AEE1828; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:23:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214ADE17E0 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:22:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lahd3 with SMTP id d3so9587426lah.40 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:22:25 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of yngwin@gmail.com designates 10.112.48.74 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.112.48.74; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of yngwin@gmail.com designates 10.112.48.74 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=yngwin@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=yngwin@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.112.48.74]) by 10.112.48.74 with SMTP id j10mr10583038lbn.106.1329884545167 (num_hops = 1); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:22:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=J36xhvPNkSwgYICNZr1bQRa+n5YM4/PpN/J4F/BwqoM=; b=fO8/u5oZ72HhRmH1zm7586wpmAbipzjtgJUGCVOXJ1aVYhq2bNXt8P5ThRKqd6zQRD xTdzl6MVZNAEmr9reMlBlUynjqZUCGfgrWHhatopvgnrwurG/lsxHKB4RoyvSwvrOjkQ JRdIjNSJCnc8LAgq0kRJyie4hCeKcu8BptLM4= 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 Received: by 10.112.48.74 with SMTP id j10mr8901489lbn.106.1329884545048; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:22:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.149.164 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:22:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1329770054.21166.12.camel@belkin4> <20120220190313.57892cfa@gentoo.org> <4F42F0AA.50004@gentoo.org> <20120220200220.3a54d88a@gentoo.org> <1329816398.2868.1.camel@belkin4> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:22:24 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About gcc-4.6 unmasking From: Ben To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 2e507855-d5a2-4356-a492-c92fc797f51f X-Archives-Hash: de980b02fdbf15c4ca6e4aa882a15432 On 22 February 2012 06:57, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > [...] Given that Grub 1 is > both beta software (it got stuck at 0.97, never made it to 1.0) and > unmaintained, Just looking at KDE 4.0 and GNOME 3.0 should tell you that version numbers can be *very* deceiving. And while grub-0.97 may "officially" be beta software it is much more stable than a lot of software that does sport the 1.0 designation. I think we should keep this version of grub around, at least for a while longer, since a lot of our users are used to this essential piece of software and may be hesitant to migrate to grub2 or other boot loaders. > stabilizing Grub 2 ASAP is the sanest thing you can do, since > even though it's also beta software, it's at least maintained by upstream. I would hesitate to say it's the *sanest* thing to do, but we should at least get it into ~arch and make sure our documentation is up to date. Cheers, Ben