On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Ben <yng...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 February 2012 06:57, Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@arcor.de> wrote: >> [...] Given that Grub 1 is >> both beta software (it got stuck at 0.97, never made it to 1.0) and >> unmaintained, > > Just looking at KDE 4.0 and GNOME 3.0 should tell you that version > numbers can be *very* deceiving. And while grub-0.97 may "officially" > be beta software it is much more stable than a lot of software that > does sport the 1.0 designation. > > I think we should keep this version of grub around, at least for a > while longer, since a lot of our users are used to this essential > piece of software and may be hesitant to migrate to grub2 or other > boot loaders.
My intent was not to suggest that we ditch grub1, but that grub2 would be stable and the 'default' assuming we (I?) can get it to work. -A > >> stabilizing Grub 2 ASAP is the sanest thing you can do, since >> even though it's also beta software, it's at least maintained by upstream. > > I would hesitate to say it's the *sanest* thing to do, but we should > at least get it into ~arch and make sure our documentation is up to > date. > > Cheers, > Ben >
