bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun Jul 31 13:52:14 PDT 2016
William Harrington wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:42:05 -0500
> Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com> wrote:
>> From the lfs point of view, I didn't notice any change when we did the
>> last update to beta2.
>> Upstream does not seen to be very interested in releases. 2.00 was 2013,
>> as was 2.02-beta2. beta3 was in February of this year. I monitor the
>> mailing list and there is almost no mentions of getting ready for a release.
>> We could wait, but it might be years -- or never. OTOH, I have no idea if
>> beta3 provides any benefits to LFS users. From reading the developers
>> mailing list, the activity seems to be on things like vmware and
>> mainframes. I don't recall anything in the last several years that would
>> affect x86 systems.
> Hello Bruce,
> Looking at the 9473 commits between the beta2 and beta3 tags, there are a lot of fixes in i386 and video which users may desire. Plenty of bugs have been fixed, as well. To view all of the changes:
> Clone the grub repository and view the log between release tags:
> git clone git://git.savannah.gnu.org/grub.git
> git log e8f07821cce1bd0ab6d5622c2a42440f15f4fd71 8207874e5d0d05159fd8c531c87f0f6e4653b8a6
> Or view the long list via the web interface: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/grub.git/
Well updating is really pretty trivial. I would just need to change the
I did a test build and the instructions we have now are fine. The only
difference I can see is that the install adds the directory
/etc/bash_completion.d and adds a file there 'grub'.
I personally dislike bash-completion (it gets in the way and pollutes the
environment), but I don't know if it should be removed or not. It could
be removed before configure or after install, but since we don't activate
it in the boot scripts (don't about systemd), then it really doesn't hurt
anything. Nothing else in LFS installs any bash completion scripts but it
looks like dbus and libreoffice installs some.
More information about the lfs-dev