Re: [gentoo-dev] grub-2 configuration

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:46:29 +1300 Kent Fredric wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:34:11 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > > > You don't have to use grub-mkconfig. You can write /boot/grub/grub.cfg > > by hand if you want, and it appears that the syntax is

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub-2 configuration

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:34:11 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > You don't have to use grub-mkconfig. You can write /boot/grub/grub.cfg > by hand if you want, and it appears that the syntax is documented in the > grub info pages. > > William Just saying, it would be really nice to

[gentoo-dev] grub-2 configuration

I broke the thread, because grub-2 configuration is an interesting topic, but I think it deserves a separate thread from the removal of grub-0 discussion. On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:57:25PM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:22:12 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: the demise of grub:0

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:22:12 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > How do you generate your grub-0 config files? I didn't, it came as a stock example file with comments which I edited in a minimal fashion until it worked. > > You can just use the same method to generate the grub-2

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: the demise of grub:0

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > Hence, a more sensible default instead of mkconfig that emits a config > file that mortals can sensibly edit ( including relevant inline comments > describing what is done ) would be a smart move that would go a long >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: the demise of grub:0

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:28:55 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > If you know grub well, you can hand write a grub.cfg without > using grub-mkconfig at all. There is a perception that you need > grub-mkconfig, but this is not true. I guess the problem is neither knowing "grub well"

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: the demise of grub:0

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:04:12PM -0500, Dan Douglas wrote: > Also grub2-mkconfig is disgusting. I wonder if anybody is interested > in making something better because I doubt it would be much work for > someone that knows grub well. 90% of what it does is generate > boilerplate code that few

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: the demise of grub:0

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:44:05PM +, Duncan wrote: > William Hubbs posted on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:59:33 -0500 as excerpted: > > > I want to look into removing grub:0 from the tree; here are my thoughts > > on why it should go. > > I don't disagree with the thought, but have some niggles on

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: the demise of grub:0

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Dan Douglas wrote: > I'm not against removing grub1, but why are the only versions of grub > in the tree betas? They don't have a proper release cycle? The upstream grub maintainer has been too busy to work on a release. He has recently recruited

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: the demise of grub:0

I'm not against removing grub1, but why are the only versions of grub in the tree betas? They don't have a proper release cycle? Also grub2-mkconfig is disgusting. I wonder if anybody is interested in making something better because I doubt it would be much work for someone that knows grub well.

Re: [gentoo-dev] SRC_URI="gogdownloader://..."

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 21:28:48 +0100 James Le Cuirot wrote: > I'll also file a > bug so we can further discuss which avenue to take. Turns out there is already an old bug for this: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391439 -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer

[gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 92 bugs

Our bug queue has 92 bugs! If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs. To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 Thanks!

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: the demise of grub:0

William Hubbs posted on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:59:33 -0500 as excerpted: > I want to look into removing grub:0 from the tree; here are my thoughts > on why it should go. I don't disagree with the thought, but have some niggles on the individual points. Note that I'm not nearly as negative on the

Re: #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree)

On 20/08/16 08:30 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 08/15/2016 12:42 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Andreas K. Hüttel >> wrote: >>> 1) Stabilization is a simpler and much more formalized process compared to >>> normal bug resolution. >>> * There

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: the demise of grub:0

On 10/04/2016 12:45 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > -1 > > I'd love to move to grub2 for all of my machines, but it does simply not > work for one of my servers. I can install grub2 and it tells me that > installation and anything else went fine, but when I try to boot with it, it > stops and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: the demise of grub:0

On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:45:35 +0200 Jörg Schaible wrote: > So, what are my options (or other people's options with such > incompatible hardware) without grub 1? Lilo? How about syslinux? -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: the demise of grub:0

On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:45:35 +0200 Jörg Schaible wrote: > -1 > > I'd love to move to grub2 for all of my machines, but it does simply not > work for one of my servers. I can install grub2 and it tells me that > installation and anything else went fine, but when

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: the demise of grub:0

-1 I'd love to move to grub2 for all of my machines, but it does simply not work for one of my servers. I can install grub2 and it tells me that installation and anything else went fine, but when I try to boot with it, it stops and reports me that it found some conflicting area in my bios why