On 06/19/2012 04:32 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 19.06.2012 09:53, schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Matej Cepl <mc...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 18/06/12 09:30, drago01 wrote:
This would just result into stagnation while the competition invents
much better wheels and leave us behind.
Abstracting for the sake of discussion from the particular case of grub2
could you at least imagine new program which would be worse than the program
it replaces?
Sure. But a new program can as well be better then the one it replaces
even if the other one has been in use for years. Not even trying to
improve the old or replace it with something better that comes up
means stagnation which is what I am objecting to.You have to make
changes to go forward.
but it is NIT better
it is a config full of crap and script-code
this is pervers - short time ago there was introduced
systemd saying "shell scripts are evil" and directly
after that we introduce a boot-loader with a configuration
where each init-script ever existed was nice compared against
CIONFIGURATION != SHELL-SCRIPT
You seem to think we, the Fedora project, have any sort of sway as to
how things get written in their various upstreams. We don't, except for
very few cases. Our choices here with grub2 are
A) continue using grub1 and continue working with diminishing resources
to keep grub1 working in the new environments a boot loader will be
needed in.
B) consume what upstream gives us in the form of grub2.
You seem to be advocating for option C) throw up your hands and yell
"THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE", and then.... what?
--
Help me fight child abuse: http://tinyurl.com/jlkcourage
- jlk
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
