Re: GRUB 2.06

[Eli Schwartz]

On 4/8/21 3:28 PM, Didier Spaier wrote:
> I am fine with shipping GRUB up to some commit in Slint, but not all
> distributions accept to do that, or to carry a zillion patches as does
> Debian.
> 
> As result, end users complain "GRUB is broken" whereas a patch that fix 
the
> issue of which they suffer of has been committed upstream a long time ago.
> 
> An example that comes to mind is:
> 6643507ce30f775008e093580f0c9499dfb2c485
> 
> Folks running Slackware-current also suffer of it:
> https://https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/requests-for-current-14-2-15-0-a-4175620463/#post6236544www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/requests-for-current-14-2-15-0-a-4175620463/#post6236544

Can you *please* not do this?

References: <cover.1617235760.git.development@efficientek.com>
 <20210408165349.otipx6gohm64bsud@tomti.i.net-space.pl>
In-Reply-To: <20210408165349.otipx6gohm64bsud@tomti.i.net-space.pl>

And randomly top-posting on top of a completely unrelated thread that
you've hit "reply to" despite having no connection to your actual reply.

There is zero benefit to this, and it's seriously inconvenient to people
who have seemingly disappearing emails due to threading.


...

Now, on to your actual discussion. Seems to me like you're using a very
confusing way of saying:

"It would be very nice if grub would commit to creating a maintenance
branch and publish periodic 2.04.1, 2.04.2, 2.04.3 style releases when
the most recent stable release is completely unsuitable for use. As a
distro maintainer, it's really awkward to have to hunt down dozens of
patches that fix important bugs, which the grub developers know are
critical, but every distro needs to painfully rediscover through the
brute force approach because no one is publicizing a list of
FYI-these-patches-are-really-important-and-you-really-should-backport-them".

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature