On Tue, 25 May 2010 07:08:20 -0400 (EDT), Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: > William Pitcock <neno...@dereferenced.org> wrote: >> This bug *can* be fixed, but not without a significant rewrite of the >> way that lilo's stage2 loader code works. Given that there is no >> active upstream and that the Debian lilo package carries many patches >> for bug fixes that are alleviated by standardizing on grub2, this >> seems like the best option for Debian. > > Agreed: dead (and buggy) softwares must be out of the distribution. > Whatever happens. If LILO regains upstream coders, its return to the > distribution is quite easy.
By that standard, grub-pc should be removed from the distribution. It may have upstream support, but based on other posts I've seen, it effectively has no maintainer. Which is worse, a package with effectively no upstream support or a package with effectively no maintainer? And grub-pc is buggier than lilo. I understand the need to remove packages with no upstream support. But asking users to test a package with umpteen known release-critical bugs, most of which have apparently been fixed upstream, but have not been fixed in Debian because there is no maintainer to download a new upstream version, is not a reasonable request in my humble opinion. Get a maintainer for it, fix the known bugs, and *then* ask the users to test it. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1927842586.35924.1274795074336.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
