Re: grub2 on powerpc
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 03:38:37PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > > Why not put it into the powerpc-utils package then? As far as I
> > Because Michael Schmitz thinks it is a bad idea, and doesn't really believe in
> > group maintenance ?
> Sven, I've largely kept silent at your innuendo, but I think it's time to
> speak plainly again.
Oh, sorry, it was not my intention to speak badly of you, just wanted to say
that you didn't really feel like group maintaining it, and that didn't like
the proposal to add the ibm powerpc-utils into the same source package as
yours. Which is what you said, no ?
> This is nothing about me not believing in team management. You asked about
> integration of _all_ of ibm powerpc-utils into Debian's powerpc-utils. In
> my opinion, this would introduce a binary we're not sure works on oldworld
> machines (nvram) and which is meant to replace nvsetenv. I think further
> testing on oldworld is required to do this.
So, what ? we have load of binaries in there which are of no use on pegasos
for example, and apt has no sub-arch support anyway, so what do you expect.
we can just nicely keep shipping both nvram and nvsetenv,
> I had also had qualms about the license on the IBM source, but you
> succesfully convinced me that this isn't a problem. I had no objections to
> integrating ofpathname in powerpc-utils (in fact, I suggested we might do
> Do you mean to say that the only problem here is my refusal of team
> management, so you couldn't just overrule me?
Nope, just that we discussed it, and neither you nor aurelien was keen on
having a single package, so we are not going to do it.
> > > understood from the discussion, ofpathname is not specific to IBM
> > > powerpc machines. It should work on every OpenFirmware based powerpc
> > > (including macs), correct?
> > It may be a bit more buggy on powermacs than on true CHRP boxes, and there are
> > some issues yet, which it would be good to fix ASAP. There are three packages
> > indeed, the powerpc-utils, the powerpc-utils-papr (ibm 64bit specific) and the
> > librtas one. only the first has any chance to work on powermacs.
> > But indeed, my original proposal was to include all those packages in the same
> > powerpc-utils source package, with some binary packages, but neither Aurelien
> > nor Michael where trilled over it.
> So you suggest including something that might be more buggy on powermacs,
> and needs testing and fixing? Seems to support my reservations nicely.
well, i think there is a giant misunderstanding here. I just proposed to *ADD*
the new tools to the powerpc-utils package, not to have them *REPLACE* the old