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

[PATCH] Enable graphical installation for Xen flavour installer

The patch below, when combined with an update to 2.6.26 (required for
Xen's paravirtual framebuffer, I used Otavio's recent patches) allows
Xen to be installed using the graphical interface when a virtual
framebuffer is configured for the guest.

Are there reasons for the requirement for vesafb rather than any of the
other FB drivers over those in #401685? Or is it simply that the CDs etc
use video=vesa so that is what is required. The Xen PVFB appears to work
but I'm wondering if there is a corner case I'm not seeing.

Also it makes the name GTK_NOVESA a bit of a lie (could better be
GTK_NOFRAMEBUFFER?) but that would be a slightly more intrusive patch to
change, although not too bad since it only touches rootskel and
rootskel-gtk. Not sure how everyone feels about a change like that at
this point.

BTW, anyone know what is up with people.debian.org, I haven't been able
to see http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/images/daily/netboot/ all


Index: packages/rootskel-gtk/src/lib/debian-installer.d/S59check-vesa-x86
--- packages/rootskel-gtk/src/lib/debian-installer.d/S59check-vesa-x86	(revision 54886)
+++ packages/rootskel-gtk/src/lib/debian-installer.d/S59check-vesa-x86	(working copy)
@@ -5,6 +5,11 @@
 		if [ $FB_INDEX -ne 0 ]; then
 			echo "fbdev=/dev/fb$FB_INDEX" >> /etc/directfbrc
+	elif grep -qs xen /proc/fb; then
+		FB_INDEX=$(grep xen /proc/fb | cut -d " " -f 1 | head -n 1)
+		if [ $FB_INDEX -ne 0 ]; then
+			echo "fbdev=/dev/fb$FB_INDEX" >> /etc/directfbrc
+		fi
Index: installer/build/config/i386/netboot-xen.cfg
--- installer/build/config/i386/netboot-xen.cfg	(revision 54886)
+++ installer/build/config/i386/netboot-xen.cfg	(working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 include config/i386/netboot.cfg
 MANIFEST-KERNEL = "kernel image for installing under Xen"

Ian Campbell

Lost: gray and white female cat.  Answers to electric can opener.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: