On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > El lun, 20-02-2012 a las 20:02 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió: >> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:17:30 -0800 >> Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> > On 02/20/2012 05:03 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: >> > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:34:14 +0100 >> > > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > > >> > >> I don't know if this has been discussed before but, what issues are >> > >> preventing us from unmasking gcc-4.6 (and think on a near >> > >> stabilization)? >> > >> >> > >> I have read hardmask message but it simply explains that it's masked for >> > >> testing purposes :-/ >> > > >> > > Grub is the only blocker. I don't want to unmask something that makes >> > > people's systems unbootable. >> > > >> > > I'm also out of ideas and open to suggestions. >> > >> > Stabilize grub-1.99, and modify the grub-0.9x ebuilds to die if they >> > can't find a supported compiler. >> >> What's the state of 1.99? I know someone was working on it recently. We'd >> also have to update the handbooks. I think it could be several months of >> work to get it ready, and I'd like to unmask 4.6 last September. >> >> > > As looks like fixing old grub is far away because nobody know what is > causing that issues, probably trying to get grub-1.99 ready for > stabilization would be interesting (we will need to do that sooner or > later anyway)
Ubuntu has used grub2 for 3 years, I am considering working on making it stable for at least x86 / amd64. -A
