Hi,
- "Stephen Powell" wrote:
> (blah blah blah blah)
Nobody cares if you are opposed to it. Unless you are offering to become
lilo upstream, it's going away.
William
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact list
Hi,
After some discussion about lilo on #debian-devel in IRC, it has pretty
much been determined that kernel sizes have crossed the line past where
lilo can reliably determine the payload size.
This bug *can* be fixed, but not without a significant rewrite of the
way that lilo's stage2 loader cod
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 16:22 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Nenolod: sorry for the other mail.
>
> William Pitcock wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 13:06 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:21 PM, William Pitcock
> >> wrote:
> >
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 11:05 -0400, Matt Arnold wrote:
> As the silent co-maintainer of lilo I believe I should now voice my
> thoughts on this
>
> I too believe that lilo should belive that lilo should be remove *at
> some point* but now is not the time. So I restate my willingness to
> take over
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 13:06 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:21 PM, William Pitcock
> wrote:
> > Lilo upstream is dead (no release in quite a while), but the lilo
> > maintainer has also been seen as saying in various mailing lists etc,
> > that s
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 10:52 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, William Pitcock said:
> >> The only way it is feasible to do so is to drop all of the Debian
> >> patches. Without this, upstream is not cooperative wi
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 18:46 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl):
>
> > I'm not sure where the original mail comes from, but IMO this should be
>
> From lilo package BTS which I was tracking for l10n purposes. So I
> just happened to notice William's answer to
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 22:20 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, William Pitcock said:
> > The only way it is feasible to do so is to drop all of the Debian
> > patches. Without this, upstream is not cooperative with us.
>
> Why is this?
See my other
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 08:53 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:13:32AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> > > And, I think this should be mentioned as a release goal (dropping
> > > lilo). Either high priority if we have install paths depending on
> >
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 17:40 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> William Pitcock wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 17:26 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> >> Frans Pop wrote:
> >>> On Monday 06 April 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
> >>>> Quot
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 17:26 +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Monday 06 April 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
> >> Quoting William Pitcock (neno...@dereferenced.org):
> >>> lilo is due for removal anyway due to being unmaintained ups
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 10:44 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Frans Pop writes:
>
> > On Monday 06 April 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> > I do not have time to manage the removal at this point, but it will
> >> > be gone by June.
> >
> > Has the package already been offered for a
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 06:42 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting William Pitcock (neno...@dereferenced.org):
> > lilo is due for removal anyway due to being unmaintained upstream and
> > the widespread availability of alternatives.
> >
> > I do not have time to
13 matches
Mail list logo
