[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#250086: extipl: please add amd64 support

(This mail is copied to amd64 list)

Hi. I'm now working on that package.

> > I don't know about amd64. Does extipl fully work on that arch ?
> > Your patch seems just to replace "i386" with "amd64 i386" on
> > the Architecture field in control file.  Is it enough to use
> > extipl on amd64 ?  extipl need BIOS support.  Does all amd64
> > system have the required BIOS support as i386 ?
> I am not certain exactly what extipl needs to work, but the bios on
> amd64 systems is essentially the same as i386. On my 2 amd64 systems the
> bios looks identical to bios on regular i386 like P4's. Actually, I am
> pretty sure that to go into 64bit mode the OS itself has to swith the
> processor into that mode, amd64 systems can run i386 code just fine.
> That is part of the reason that Debian is pushing towards multiarch
> where both i386 and amd64 libraries can be installed on the same system
> at the same time (as well as sparc and sparc64, etc). Multiarch
> probably won't be completed for 6mo-1yr though due to the amount of
> changes to packaging that is needed.

Extipl uses syscall5 _llseek on i386 to reach the right sector
in the hard disk where the boot code is installed in. 
So I'm afraid that it can't work on pure 64bit environment.
But if any amd64 system can run all i386 32bit code,
then it might run that _llseek system call too.

> > And, can you work for amd64 support, if any bug report comes
> > on amd64 specific feature ?
> There is a debian-amd64 mailing list that you can forward issues that
> you are unable to resolve to just as there is for the other archs.

OK. I send the copy of this mail to the list. I hope it will work.

> > I've experienced many times that "one user claims to do something,
> > there must be other users who claim not to do it".  So I'm nervous
> > now to change the package.
> > 
> > By the way, why this bug is important ? is wishlist not enough ?
> I was told in the past FTBFS on new archs were considered "important" so
> that is why I set it as it is.

I think that the advice is for "Architecture: any" packages.
But anyway, I'll upload the package. Let's see what happens.

  Taketoshi Sano: <sano@debian.org>,<sano@debian.or.jp>,<kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>

Reply to: