On 20.05.20 12:42, Valentin Vidić wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:19:53AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> Ah, sorry. I was seeing the cached version of the thread, refreshing helped.
>> In any case, the SPARC kernel maintainer (Dave Miller) had the same argument
>> that it would potentially break existing setups but eventually I could
>> convince him that the change was right.
>> Not sure which distributions he has in mind.
> It is hard to tell, but it seems the current state is hardcoded
> in different places:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2017-May/msg00068.html
> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/linuxonibm/com.ibm.linux.z.lhdd/lhdd_r_console_sum.html
> I think it would be better to make debian-installer smarter about
> this since we will probably run into the same problem again with
> a different architecture/driver.

qemu-system-s390x is probably the least representative here. I recall
that the consoles for z/VM and LPAR were actually different. As alluded
to by the thread LPAR uses SCLP while you get 3215 on z/VM.

I'm all for making d-i smarter. But I think we should start by trying to
back merge all the improvements Canonical made on Ubuntu instead of
Debian as part of their s390x contract. Maybe trying ubuntu-installer
and seeing if that works correctly would be a good start.

But then I keep wondering how representative qemu is. Is VT220 SCLP even
something you get on a real z machine? Not that we shouldn't fix qemu,
of course. But Hercules might be closer to the real thing in this regard.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Reply via email to