On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:37:28PM -0400, Jay Estabrook wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:39:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:41:49PM -0400, Jay Estabrook wrote: > > > Yes, one could have differently-configured kernels available via aboot > > > "slots" on a single netinst CD/ISO; it's just a matter of building the > > > kernels (as appropriate) and managing them. > > Well, there doesn't seem to be much point in having a kernel listed in > > the aboot config that's only needed on systems that don't support SRM, > > does there? > Indeed... ;-} > > Given that there is no milo support in debian-installer anyway, > It's actually not that hard - there's a MILO "aboot.conf" equivalent > (aptly named "milo.cfg" :-) on the CD in / that has appropriate stuff > in it (find an example attached). Yep, it's been a few years since I've used milo, but I do remember the basics of how it fits together. The biggest obstacle is the requirement that everything included in Debian main be buildable *and built* from source; and building MILO from source is a particularly arcane art that no one currently working on d-i has time for. If you've succeeded in building it from source with a modern compiler, I'd be interested in seeing your sources. I'm sure this won't make the cut for sarge, but we might as well try for it for etch (sarge+1). > Only differences between the configs for MILO kernel and SRM UP kernel > were: > LEGACY_STARTS_ADDRESS=y # for MILO > CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_SIZE=12288 # for MILO, big install INITRD image Ok. Do you know if there are issues with using the same set of modules for kernels built both with or without the LEGACY_START_ADDRESS setting? I suspect not; in which case, I think that for d-i we should only need one initrd w/ one set of modules, and can therefore neatly avoid the second of these changes. > > If there is a real case for supporting the MILO-only systems, in spite > > of the overwhelming lack of effort to support it for sarge installs, > > then I suppose we would need to talk to the kernel maintainers about > > building two different kernel-images for this case. > It can really be only a matter of adding a single additional kernel to > the (many) already done ones (install/UP/SMP/NUMA/?). Debian currently only ships two kernel images for alpha -- UP and SMP. The installer uses the UP build. At any rate, I think the case for adding a third kernel flavor for alpha is clear. I'll submit a bug to the kernel package maintainers about this. Thanks for your input, Jay. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature