Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:51:32 -0200 | Subject | Re: README Cleanup Project | From | Diego Viola <> |
| |
Why does the Linux kernel keep outdated cruft like this in tree?
If you need lilo you can just run /sbin/lilo yourself, there is no need for this to be in the kernel, especially when the project is being phased out already.
Should I send a patch removing all lilo entries from the project?
Diego
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Diego Viola <diego.viola@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 02:46:30AM -0200, Diego Viola wrote: >>>> Hello everyone, >>>> >>>> I would like to do some cleanup on the README, for example, I see it >>>> still mentions LILO in a few places, e.g. >>>> >>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/README#L256-L258 >>>> >>>> And: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/README#L295-L317 >>>> >>>> Is this still relevant today? Can I send a patch to remove it from the >>>> README? Any objections? >>> >>> What for? LILO still works just fine here, TYVM. >>> >> >> I know LILO still works fine, and I know the project is still alive. > > Wait, I'm actually not sure about my statement above, looks like the > project is dead: > > "NOTE: I will finish development of LILO at December 2015 because of > some limitations (e.g. with BTFS, GPT, RAID). If someone want to > develop this nice software further, please let me know ..." > > http://lilo.alioth.debian.org/ > >> >>>> Could you guys also help me identify other parts in the README that >>>> are not relevant anymore today? >>>> >>>> I understand some people still use LILO but most don't anymore, so I >>>> would like to help keep the README updated to reflect on what the >>>> current standards and needs are. >>> >>> _What_ current standards? >> >> Perhaps not "standards" but there are other bootloaders these days, >> GRUB and systemd-boot being one of them. >> >> Shouldn't the README be generic or neutral about bootloaders? >> >> See this message from Jonathan Corbet where he gave his opinion on this: >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/10/602 >> >> Thanks, >> >> Diego
| |