0

When searching for available GRUB2 packages for the Debian v9.11.0 "Stretch", I get only beta packages listed:

root@Debian:~# apt search GRUB2 Sorting... Done Full Text Search... Done grub-imageboot/oldstable 0.6 all boot iso, harddisk and floppy images with grub2 and syslinux memdisk grub2/oldstable,now 2.02~beta3-5+deb9u2 amd64 [residual-config] GRand Unified Bootloader, version 2 (dummy package) grub2-common/oldstable 2.02~beta3-5+deb9u2 amd64 GRand Unified Bootloader (common files for version 2) grub2-splashimages/oldstable 1.0.1+nmu1 all a collection of great GRUB2 splashimages live-wrapper/oldstable 0.6+nmu1 all Wrapper for vmdebootstrap for creating live images live-wrapper-doc/oldstable 0.6+nmu1 all Wrapper for vmdebootstrap for creating live images (Documentation) vmdebootstrap/oldstable 1.7-1 amd64 Bootstrap Debian into a (virtual machine) disk image

As you can see, this search returns only beta packages. I had to jump through hoops to install a stable GRUB2 package, see: How to upgrade GRUB v1 to GRUB v2 without installing a Beta version?

QUESTION: Why does the Debian "Stretch" repository contain only beta versions of the GRUB2 in the first place ? After all, the stable GRUB v2.00 was released 5 years BEFORE Debian "Stretch" was released, see here: ftp.gnu.org/gnu/grub

Is this a bug in this distro's repository ?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Those were the best available versions when Debian 9 was released.

Looking at the changelog leading up to version 2.02~beta3-5deb9u2 provides some explanation:

  • 2.00 was indeed released in 2012, and uploaded to Debian experimental; it was uploaded to unstable (targeting the next stable release) in May 2013, after 14 revisions in Debian (and with a number of fixes from Ubuntu);
  • many uploads of 2.00 with additional fixes followed, suggesting that 2.00 suffered from a number of bugs;
  • in December 2013, a snapshot of the GRUB repository was packaged, with many more fixes, confirming the above;
  • subsequent beta releases were packaged, again in experimental first, fixed, and eventually released in Debian 9, with a large number of patches on top of the official “beta” release.

So you could have a “stable” 2.00 version if you wanted, but you’d have to live with all the bugs which were discovered afterwards. The important thing to remember really is that a version number (including “alpha”, “beta” etc. monikers) is a name, chosen by the upstream developers; ideally it gives some indication of stability, but in many cases that’s wishful thinking; especially with a project like GRUB, where there’s little hope that the upstream developers can test all the cases which will be encountered in the field.

As with any package in a distribution, you’re trusting the distribution’s developers’ judgment. If they end up shipping what seems like a surprising version number of a given project, there’s often a good reason behind the situation (but it doesn’t hurt to ask!).

Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    Even easier: Notice that it is 2.02, not 2.00 as the questioner looks at. Debian 9 was frozen in January 2017. GRUB 2.02 was released out of beta in April 2017. Commented Jan 6, 2020 at 12:33
  • Yes, I had noticed that, but that begs the question “why didn’t Debian stay on 2.00 instead of jumping to beta versions?” which is what I tried to answer. Commented Jan 6, 2020 at 12:34
  • ...but the newer Debian "Buster" installs the stable GRUB v2.02+dfsg1-20 package. Why can't "Stretch" do that ? Commented Jan 6, 2020 at 12:34
  • No, 2.02+dfsg1-20 is newer that the 2.02 beta versions. 2.02 beta versions are pre-releases of 2.02. Commented Jan 6, 2020 at 12:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.