Bug#421338: this ia64/amd64 issue comes up really often.
submitter 421338 !
retitle 421338 this ia64/amd64 issue comes up really often
reassign 421338 efi-reader
severity 421338 wishlist
Op 29-04-2007 om 18:58 schreef Eddy Petri??or:
> Geert Stappers wrote:
> > Op 29-04-2007 om 14:28 schreef Eddy Petri??or:
> >> Julien BLACHE wrote:
> >>> Apple machines aren't ia64, they're i386/amd64 machines.
> >>> So, you used the wrong architecture, grab an i386 or amd64
> >>> installation media instead.
> >> Maybe we could add a warning in the ia64 images
> >> when such an image is used on an amd64 machine;
> > Please elaborate your proposal.
> what's not clear?
> if you try to boot an ia64 image and it fails, the error message should
> suggest (if clear detection is not possible) that the user might be
> trying to boot the wrong type of image and maybe he/she should try an
> amd64 image which is the proper image for Intel Core 2 processors
It would be nice if the string
"Error: unsupported while loading bootia64.efi"
would be changed in
"Error: unsupported while loading bootia64.efi. Try an amd64 image"
Rationalate, courtisity of Eddy Petri??or:
> You can't expect everybody to know how debian called its amd64/x86_64
> architecture. Even the people that are close to debian might not
> know the difference (I know I also was confused). And since Intel
> Core 2 processors are produced by Intel, people *expect* the arch
> to be called something along the lines of i386, i486, and not k6,
> k7 or amd*, so ia64 - oh "Intel architecture, 64 bits, that's it"
> is the first thing that springs to mind.
> This is the reason behind many choices made in all kinds of places
> which are taken on the account of the "element of the least surprise".
> Not knowing the history of the x86_64 arch is NOT plain ignorance. You
> can't expect everybody to know such things.
> I appreciate what Debian wanted to do (pay a tribute to amd), but we
> have to admit the choice backfired. I would be really curious about
> some comparative graphs about the downloads of the ia64 images around
> the release of etch and around the release of sarge (also in comparison
> with i386, amd64 and other images)... I wouldn't be surprised if there
> was a big difference since Intel Core 2 processors became more common
> place during sarge's lifetime and is *easy* to make the wrong choice...
The reassign to 'efi-reader' was to get this BR away from
'installation-reports', but I couldn't find the "efi bootloader"