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?
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.
Thanks,
Diego
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.
> 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?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Al Viro <[email protected]> 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.
>> 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
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Diego Viola <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Al Viro <[email protected]> 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
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Diego Viola <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Al Viro <[email protected]> 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
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Diego Viola <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why does the Linux kernel keep outdated cruft like this in tree?
depends on the eye of the beholder. :-)
> 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?
You can do a patch which improves the existing README.
Removing stuff you don't like is not an improvement.
--
Thanks,
//richard
I agree, I would like to apologize for this drama, I never intended to
create any flamewars or anything.
I also have nothing against LILO itself which I used to use, it used
to work great for me.
I just love Linux and I want to do what I can (and my best) to try to
improve it.
Thanks,
Diego
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Richard Weinberger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Diego Viola <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Why does the Linux kernel keep outdated cruft like this in tree?
>
> depends on the eye of the beholder. :-)
>
>> 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?
>
> You can do a patch which improves the existing README.
> Removing stuff you don't like is not an improvement.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> //richard