On 10/20/20 4:05 PM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I don't know. It would have made the effort significantly harder to
> rebase to 2.04.1 instead of just appending the patches to the ton
> of patches we already have.
Why is this a grub development concern? It might be work for Debian, but
other dis
Hi Julian,
On 2020.10.20 20:00, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
That's a misunderstanding, nobody would upgrade existing OS to 2.06, you
can't just upgrade the entire bootloader in a stable OS.
We're talking about distro maintainers adding a GRUB bootloader for
ISO/image boot. We're not talking ab
Hi Eli,
On 2020.10.20 20:12, Eli Schwartz wrote:
I'd like to instead propose a third option though. grub could benefit
from a policy to fork off maintenance branches for CVE fixes, and all
distros would upgrade to 2.04.1 (or 2.02.1), then later on a couple of
rolling release distros would upgrad
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 03:12:49PM -0400, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 10/20/20 3:00 PM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 05:30:41PM +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
> >> Just wanted to mention that the 2.06 release (btw, is GRUB jumping straight
> >> from 2.04 [1] to 2.06 then?) delay w
On 10/20/20 3:00 PM, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 05:30:41PM +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
>> Just wanted to mention that the 2.06 release (btw, is GRUB jumping straight
>> from 2.04 [1] to 2.06 then?) delay with the BootHole fixes is starting to
>> create some issues as folks (
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 05:30:41PM +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 2020.07.29 18:46, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > I think this link [1] will explain my long absence... Sorry about that.
> >
> > I am going to go back to GRUB work next week. I will triage all the patches
> > and take all (
