Sigh... [Re: Vote: Grub vs LILO]

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee highos at
Sun Oct 13 14:57:29 PDT 2002


On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 11:03:00PM +0200, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> I was also under the impression that this was not set in stone. And the
> question of waiting for a Grub release called "stable" or not is
> definitely open.

Nothings is *ever* set in stone.  Even once something is commited into
CVS does not mean it will not be reverted or changed depending on the
circumstances.  I did not say this is not open to debate, I actually
semi-quoted Gerard saying he still considered it open...

However, what I was trying to point out, is that if you did look at the
numerous threads in the last few months and some of the entries in
bugzilla, this has more or less allready been decided.

That does not mean it's set in stone or impossible to change.

[It's more about how we have been stalling for a stable release and
dealing with the lfs-book 4.0 release.  It's only untill now that we can
even start to properly address this, now that 4.0 is out]

> But these people have not followed the GRUB vs LILO issue and most of them
> won't be interested, at least not those who are not on lfs-dev, too.

Huh?  Where's the logic in that.  Alot of people don't follow this
mailing list because alot of the time it's stuff that's way over their
head or are things they don't directly need to worry about.

Package changes on the other hand are a totally different issue.
Especially when you get start getting to discussing changes to
bootloaders, editors, etc, etc...

Honestly, getting the views of the users that were problably *unaware*
that we're even considering switching is problably way more important
then taking a poll on a development list, imnsho.


> This thread is not rehashing anything.
Sure it is.  Right before you posted this thread I spend a couple of hours
reading my lfs-dev backlog of e-mails and must have read about ~10
threads discussion this issue.  I was actually thinking about posting a
complain right when I first noticed it, however I knew that this
spammage was coming regardless if I complained then... figured it's
easier to get some rest and deal with it afterwards :)

> That is true, but seeing how many people care about this issue and how
> many of them support Grub does make a difference. As I've said, before
> this poll I was under the impression that the GRUB and LILO camps were
> evenly matched and that as a consequence of this,  it would be reasonable
> to postpone the switch to Grub. I have changed my mind on this. Seeing the
> huge community support for Grub, I now believe that making an exception to
> the "no packages not officially declared stable" for Grub is a good idea. 

Well, sure.  It's great everyone now has a clear idea where everyone
else stands when it comes to this issue, because of this poll.  I did
not say this poll was useless.  I just felt it was slightly inapproriate
for this list.  I wasn't the only one that felt this way...

As for the issue of making exceptions on the "stable" nature of
software, I suggest you go back to around August or so and read the
various threads we had dealing with this issue.  We discussed it at
lenght as to where the LFS project stood in that regards.

Anyways.... to rehash:  This was more of a complain about how you
handled this poll/vote.

[I don't care if we discuss this to sheebang and back a gazillion times,
I just don't appreciate ~100 new posts in a few hours on a development
list in such a nature.  I'm also willing to elaborate futher on my first
point about the decided nature of this switch..but not here =)]

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee  ( highos at linuxfromscratch dot org )
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list