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 ?


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 | |
  • 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. – JdeBP Jan 6 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. – Stephen Kitt Jan 6 at 12:34
  • ...but the newer Debian "Buster" installs the stable GRUB v2.02+dfsg1-20 package. Why can't "Stretch" do that ? – George Robinson Jan 6 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. – Stephen Kitt Jan 6 at 12:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.