Re: powerpc d-i build
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 06:47:47PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Thorsten Sauter <tsauter@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > * Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> [2003-10-26 10:56]:
> > > | Well, please enable build of powerpc images on something else than just
> > > | pmac then. It doesn't make sense to keep using a maybe older build
> > > | system but which is only able to build for a limited set of
> > > | architectures/subarchitectures, while development has gone into adding
> > > | support in the new branch. If we reasoned like this, we would still be
> > > | using boot-floppies today.
> > >
> > > what it needed to support more sub-architectures? I guess the
> > > initrd-image is always the same, isn't it?
> >
> > Each kernel flavour needs its own modules. That means its own initrd
> > due to space concerns. We can't put 3 sets of modules on the initrd
> > for m68k without bloating it. On the other hand m68k has nearly
> > everything compiled in so we might not need any modules.
> >
> > Powerpc might be able to use the same kernel for all. Not sure.
>
> We have two kernels and two module sets only. The normal powerpc, which
> has pmac, chrp, chrp-rs6k and prep images, and the powerpc-small. Maybe
> at a later time we can use only the powerpc-small, but we need more
> experience with that.
>
> And then, there is apus, which use a separate kernel image, and thus
> it's own modules too.
Ah, forgot about apus there. So powerpc is multi kernel/initrd too.
> > > The only changes we need, is to include more kernels (or merged
> > > kernel+initrd files) on the cdrom.
> > >
> > > Maybe we must also include different files (mkisofs options) to allow
> > > other machines to boot from such a cdrom.
> >
> > Powerpc needs mibot floppies, which need the smaller kernels Sven lost
> > by autopartitioner. yaboot already works. Both can coexists together.
>
> And OF booting can also coexist, as well as apus booting.
>
> Friendly
>
> Sven Luther
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: