Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
В Sun, 08 Feb 2015 11:14:28 -0600
Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> пишет:
Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
В Thu, 5 Feb 2015 21:55:54 +0000 Eric Ewanco <eric.ewa...@genband.com>
пишет:
Background: I need to use a really large initrd for x86_64 (Linux 3.4.47),
and I'm near the limit, so I'm studying grub-core/loader/i386/linux.c to
find out the whys and wherefores of the GRUB 2.00 size limit.
GRUB 2.00 is way too old.
But as far as I know grub-2.00 is the last "stable" release. There is the more
current grub-2.02~beta2 that was released over a year ago, but some people
prefer releases that upstream has designated as stable.
If you want to discuss a problem on development list, you should at
least verify if this problem exists in current code.
I agree.
In practice all ditros I'm aware of are using at least 2.02~beta2 or
what effectively amounts to git snapshot.
Indeed. We have gone to 2.02~beta2 also, although we prefer it when upstream
labels a packages as stable.
Has grub gone to a policy of git snapshots only and forgone stable releases?
I do not think it is intentional.
There are several packages that do not release stable releases but only
snapshots (but it is uncommon), however AFAIK grub is one of the very few active
packages that does not seem to have a regularly scheduled release process.
It would actually help us if you just said that you are not going to designate
stable, release candidate, beta, etc tarballs any more and it's up to the distro
or individual to figure out what version to extract from version control.
-- Bruce Dubbs
LFS
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
