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 4566C138330 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:14:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DACC9E09AA; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:13:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vk0-f68.google.com (mail-vk0-f68.google.com [209.85.213.68]) (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 9AB31E08E9 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:13:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f68.google.com with SMTP id 2so3551962vkb.1 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:13:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3pMQty0RI+7upOQHi4orrj/A9N7nl4vCLRb7uDwpy2g=; b=yOmthkVWi/0WTP6hQnxp2yrgoLvu9O1bgdXYvm+uj/NwweOtXk+qk65RVfKboAc4Mi CXFCq7fLzLS/ypHlW4DewTM9thl8osRdvJ9oeM/6Tv78G777qr/jl9Vfrdeq3T3Ko1u+ Wb6qDCgrGv61RvPTlyHhPVchDesQ9jlmNMom6dX7h70MnltV1YzkpWB18fkN/G6jmUX1 mXoyshxvSSY1o/BGs14y0RJwqPBbnjdBw+yazZtBkT4xuXKo56gzF5V38twESZJFxWZH gC6BmVo9cxATjcBcXu04ffhxbxqJ0wXwRiSvRdU0JPq2xkjlOX97PzypRHD7XZOPFKX5 0vkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=3pMQty0RI+7upOQHi4orrj/A9N7nl4vCLRb7uDwpy2g=; b=WwcQ493dwSNQM6Jy54CU+CkJebX9xLEhnhZze95HSe+ZuobmMTyr474EaWapj+LNAe Sch7o/nRW6YaxmWnDZhvEhIGXEYpMjxgDKJFviYcClHfq9hBrNhitAfimYzyf+dRYfy7 mDvS1Rim7ACGN9b0EIyw7JRbk6e9a9tcfpE9a4bzMk844Q+3qffkxCxTJqCwRpDE4FhH /83oSNccH4shCGyk581ap6Vv95HrmwfHvth6Z0mWF2luu1lDH39CFqkku7bNvc5PC8+a pSrEjchQ8bFkS/5MeWG798I4egc+hUGckzDsR5f8OtO0n1knIDAMlBZOt3FjFJHo/HuA JuaA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnZx9EQqcnpcPvR/o9Wji5Xi60Q+smeRUUOk8utyo5VWpO0pcX8vpr2VeFDTguYk80IQjg4VIaGmykO1g== X-Received: by 10.31.3.155 with SMTP id f27mr4064322vki.64.1476368022371; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:13:42 -0700 (PDT) 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 10.176.66.134 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:13:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20161003215933.GA28448@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20161004222416.GA17685@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> From: Raymond Jennings Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:13:01 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: the demise of grub:0 To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114285728802ce053ebfb7b7 X-Archives-Salt: a330562c-6ffc-43ac-8367-a8ab6d5d1aba X-Archives-Hash: cc4890331343895dbf1a84f17c2c7fc8 --001a114285728802ce053ebfb7b7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > On 10/04/2016 06:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > This would actually be another reason to get rid of grub-0, if it can't > > build on one of our profiles, it will more than likely never be fixed > > upstream because they are now focused on grub-2.x. > > grub-0 is 32-bit software. You could build it without multilib but you need > the dependencies like any other package (and link them statically). And > there > are other packages on the tree that don't build on all profiles. > USE="abi_x86_32" ? >> Another alternative would be simply hard-masking it, but leaving it in > >> place for those who want it. It does still work, and I see no evidence > >> we're removing it due to security issues or breakage. > > > > We are removing it because upstream has a new version of the software > > and has moved on from this one. For most packages, if foo-1.0 is > > stable, then foo-2.0 comes to stable, after some point we remove foo-1.0 > > from the tree. > > Grub2 is not really a new version, it's a different product with different > use cases. I don't use grub-0 to boot any of my gentoo boxes but I use it > for > some embedded x86 projects so it's convenient to be able build it off the > tree. I remember trying grub2 on one of them a while back and IIRC it more > than doubled the size of the image. > > Just my 2 cents worth. > > -- > > Fernando Rodriguez > > --001a114285728802ce053ebfb7b7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Fernando Rodriguez <cyklonite@gmail.com= > wrote:
On 10= /04/2016 06:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 This would actually be another reason to get rid of grub-0, if i= t can't
>=C2=A0 build on one of our profiles, it will more than likely never be = fixed
>=C2=A0 upstream because they are now focused on grub-2.x.

grub-0 is 32-bit software. You could build it without multilib but y= ou need
the dependencies like any other package (and link them statically). And the= re
are other packages on the tree that don't build on all profiles.

USE=3D"abi_x86_32"

?

>> Another alternative would be simply hard-masking it, but lea= ving it in
>> place for those who want it.=C2=A0 It does still work, and I see n= o evidence
>> we're removing it due to security issues or breakage.
>
> We are removing it because upstream has a new version of the software<= br> > and has moved on from this one. For most packages, if foo-1.0 is
> stable, then foo-2.0 comes to stable, after some point we remove foo-1= .0
> from the tree.

Grub2 is not really a new version, it's a different product with= different
use cases. I don't use grub-0 to boot any of my gentoo boxes but I use = it for
some embedded x86 projects so it's convenient to be able build it off t= he
tree. I remember trying grub2 on one of them a while back and IIRC it more<= br> than doubled the size of the image.

Just my 2 cents worth.

--

Fernando Rodriguez


--001a114285728802ce053ebfb7b7--