Am 20.11.2010 15:25, schrieb Heiko Baums: > Am Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:27:35 +0100 > schrieb Pierre Schmitz <pierre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> ATM. we have grub1 in core/base and install that by default. The >> problem is that this project is virtually dead for a long time now and >> also not available on x86_64. Technically it has to be in the multilib >> repo. > > I'm running a x86_64 system and have grub1 installed without any lib32 > dependencies. So, of course it's available on x86_64. Why shall this be > moved to [multilib]? Grub does not build for x86_64. /sbin/grub: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, stripped Technically, this is very un-Arch-way. >> An alternative successor would be extlinux from the syslinux package. >> It's very simple, easy to configure, actively maintained and reliable. >> Sure, it only supports booting from ext* and btrfs afaik but to be >> honest, if you use any other FS you should have a separate /boot even >> when using grub. > > This would be a massive regression because there are several people who > are using reiserfs and other filesystems. I don't even know if installing a bootloader on reiser, jfs or xfs is safe. Just because grub does it, doesn't mean it's a good idea. > The best would be if every available bootloader would be moved to > [core] and supported by AIF, so that the user can decide during the > installation which bootloader fits best to him and which bootloader > shall be installed, because there's currently no bootloader which can do > everything. I don't think it's a good idea to maintain that many bootloaders in core. grub-legacy is unmaintained, lilo has a very old-school design and major disadvantages. We could keep grub2, but it seems it isn't really stable yet.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
