-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:07:29AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: >On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 15:41 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> >> Harrasing LILO users by silencing bugreports about problems[2] using >> it is the wrong approach. If LILO is officially unsupported by >> Debian (not only by kernel team and/or initramfs-tools maintainer) we >> should drop that package from the archive! > >I am LILO's maintainer. It is hardly unsupported, infact it is >supported better now than it has been in a long time.
great to hear that (and no, I was unware that you were its maintainer)! >The initramfs-tools maintainer does not support any bootloader. It is >not their place to support any bootloaders. I agree (I maintain an alternate ramdisk generator, yaird), but there seems to be different opinions on that: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ grep -n lilo /usr/sbin/update-initramfs 175:# lilo call 176:run_lilo() 178: # show lilo errors on failure 179: if ! lilo -t > /dev/null 2>&1 ; then 180: echo "ERROR lilo fails for new ${initramfs}:" 182: lilo -t 184: lilo 187:# check if lilo is on mbr 200: # check out lilo.conf for validity 201: boot=$(awk -F = '/^boot=/{ print $2}' /etc/lilo.conf) 221: && run_lilo && return 0 225: echo "WARNING: grub and lilo installed." 227: echo "If you use lilo as bootloader you must run lilo!" 234: # if both lilo and grub around, figure out if lilo needs to be run 237: if [ -e /etc/lilo.conf ] && [ -x /sbin/lilo ]; then 242: run_lilo 254: if [ -r /etc/lilo.conf ] && [ -x /sbin/lilo ]; then 255: run_lilo 258: if [ -x /sbin/elilo ]; then 259: elilo >I think it is absurd that you claim you are being silenced when you are >not. I am not. I was referring to bugreports, not myself. (To be exact, Max has actually kindly asked me to keep silent about kernel and initramfs-tools bugs, but that is _not_ the issue raised here!) >If you have both GRUB and LILO installed, there will be problems. That >is infact, a bug. They should Conflict with each other to ensure that >only one can be installed at a time, but it is a minor bug at best, as >any smart user would not have both bootloaders installed. And infact, >any typical user would not install a second bootloader. I agree that it is highly unusual to activate multiple bootloaders concurrently. But not to install multiple bootloader _packages_. I would want both to be supported. but sure, that is up to you bootloader package maintainers. I consider it wrong to close bugreports filed against initramfs-tools when (partly) belonging to lilo. But sure, if you as lilo maintainer is happy with that, I rest my case. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAki1aSEACgkQn7DbMsAkQLhRLACbBBvGWgfu1pAMVihbSrsJacSv 0noAmgPO/o06dsVvbg8cYtk3AX/n0Gpw =GGWp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]