[syslinux] Making a 6.04

Ady ady-sf at hotmail.com
Tue Jun 14 10:13:54 PDT 2016


> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:35:13AM +0300, Ady wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:03:05PM -0400, Gene Cumm wrote:
> > > On May 31, 2016 6:31 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > > There seem to be a bunch of bug fixes in the 6.04 branch that people
> > > > really need.  Do we know of any current regressions?  Otherwise we
> > > > really ought to just push the button...
> > > >
> > >
> > > How about the recently introduced weak issue?
> >  
> > How about the "HIDDEN" issue? How about updating and testing the 
> > gnu-efi submodule? How about the "keeppxe" patch (perhaps solving a bug 
> > that has been present since v.5+)?
> 
> I think that 'the recently introduced weak issue' and 'the "keeppxe" patch'
> are the same. http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2016-June/025216.html

No, they are not. Bug #71 is not the same as bug #5.

> 
> 
> > Or how about the feedback I wrote 
> > when 6.04-pre1 was released? How about a "gptmbr.bin" that supports 
> > XFS? How about the many regressions still present, for so many years? 
> > And the pending patches?
> > 
> > [sarcasm mode on]
> > Let's have an automatic daily build! Moreover, let's have an automatic 
> > daily release! One new official release version every single day. That 
> > way, the so many many many users of Syslinux 6+ would get a newer 
> > updated version, with a shiny new number, every single day! Yeah, I'm 
> > sure that would solve all the problems.
> > [sarcasm mode off]
> 
> That is called CI  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration )
> [serious mode continued]
> 
> 
> > I seriously doubt that there are many people actually requesting for an 
> > updated release, except maybe for super-lazy maintainers that don't 
> > really care (and I am able to prove this with facts, but I won't waste 
> > my own time with something that won't be even read).
> > 
> > I wish and hope for actual development. Shiny and, at this point, 
> > completely useless numbers, won't change the facts.
> 
> The good thing I see in a new version number is "Let's move forward"
 
They are unrelated in this case. Moreover, the last few times that a 
new version was released, the development stalled even more than 
before.

My point is that those requesting a new version release now don't seem 
to be following the development, nor the existing regressions, nor the 
pending-for-review patches.

Not having the gnu-efi submodule updated and tested is enough reason 
not to release now; but to know that, people would need to be following 
the development. I could provide a lot more reasons.

> 
> 
> Groeten
> Geert Stappers
 
At any rate, I expressed my honest opinion, trying to be objective and 
realistic.

Regards,
Ady.


More information about the Syslinux mailing list