Re: grub2 on powerpc
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 12:33:35PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:16:02AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Robert Millan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > This is strange. I know one of the core grub2 maintainers is using powerpc
> > > regularly (with code from CVS).
> > It certainly works--I've used it myself. But there is so much
> > duplicated, common, code between the ports, it really is asking for
> > splitting into separate arch-specific and generic parts, rather than
> > duplicating the entirety for each port.
> > > As for tools not in Debian, you mean ofpathname?
> > Yes.
> > > Is the grub2 debian package usable at all without ofpathname? (I
> > > understand that at least grub-install won't work, making d-i support
> > > impossible).
> > It's just grub-install that breaks. Installing by hand works.
> Ah, good. Btw, anyone tried loading a 64bit kernel from 32bit grub2? If it
> works, we could add ppc64 to the list (using biarch).
As said, a year or two ago, i used grub2 to boot a dual power3 box, which is a
powerpc 64bit machine. It worked just fine, especially since the default
method for openfirmware bootloaders is to run as 32bit. I am not sure it makes
sense to run them in 64bit mode, or even if it is supposed to work. All the
documentation i have seen on this topic, even from IBM and others, show that
the bootloader should be run in 32bit mode, and the kernel is launched from
32bit, and then sets up the 64bit stuff, so there should be no major
difference with regard to grub2.
Notice that here ppc64 is confusing, you probably speak about the one-man-show
pure-64 thingy from Andreas Jochens, and not from the kernel arch ppc64.
Notice that this is not and will never be an officially supported arch by
debian, and despite me asking, Andreas Jochens has shown absolutely no
interest to cooperate with the biarch or multi-arch effort, even though this
won't happen anymore for etch anyway.