[coreboot] Proposed overhaul of the GRUB2 wiki page
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Tue Sep 9 22:34:49 CEST 2008
On 09.09.2008 22:14, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 09:42:18PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>> GRUB legacy is also no longer maintained, yet nobody suggests purging
>> information about it.
> GRUB Legacy is maintained. I know, because I maintain it myself in Debian.
OK. The official GNU GRUB site states: "GRUB Legacy
<http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/grub-legacy.en.html> is no longer
being developed." I thought that also implies it is no longer
maintained. And with 4 months on average between commits on mainline
GRUB legacy, it is less maintained than the coreboot GRUB2 fork.
> You might also want to check for others doing the same:
> And so on. And I also deal with bug reports.
Well, these are the maintained Debian and Ubuntu forks of GRUB legacy.
I'm interested in upstream and that has 4 months on average between commits.
>> A branch that is no longer maintained can be equivalent to a branch
>> that's feature-complete and bug-free (think TeX). As long as the
>> mainline GRUB2 version does not have ALL features of the branch (and if
>> past experience is any indicator, that will never happen), mainline will
>> be inferior and the branch will be preferred by many people. Those
>> people need documentation.
>> So deleting the existing text is not an option right now.
> No objection from me, as long as a contact address for bug reports and support
> is provided. If there's no explanation on where to send bug reports, people
> will assume it's fine to contact GRUB authors, and grub-devel doesn't want the
> hot potato.
OK, then simply add a line to the coreboot GRUB2 wiki page stating that
and everyone is happy.
>> 2) Write someting in the GRUB2 wiki about GRUB2 mainline coreboot support.
> My draft has an explanation on the branched version of GRUB 2. Are you
> impliing that the page should consider the abandoned version that nobody
> is maintaining, and that Coresystems states has stopped developing for, as
> the main option for those users who searched for "GRUB" in your wiki, and
> clicked the "GRUB" link?
See above. Even if you only consider the last 3 months, the coreboot
fork of GRUB2 is maintained better than upstream GRUB legacy. Unless
you're willing to declare upstream GRUB legacy as "abandoned", please
wait with declaring the coreboot fork of GRUB2 as abandoned until the
average time between commits of the GRUB2 fork is lower than that of
upstream GRUB legacy. Thanks.
More information about the coreboot