Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 15:31 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Due to these installer problems we're probably not going to be able to have an official PowerPC release for Fedora 15, but the goal is to definitely get it done for Fedora 16. Am I interpreting this right that this effctively means we will have to run a new installation on PPC machines currently runninc F12? Well, if you want to do a yum update, you don't *need* the installer initrd to work :) There's no real reason you shouldn't be able to update to the F15 packages even without an installer, surely? -- dwmw2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:32 AM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 15:31 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Due to these installer problems we're probably not going to be able to have an official PowerPC release for Fedora 15, but the goal is to definitely get it done for Fedora 16. Am I interpreting this right that this effctively means we will have to run a new installation on PPC machines currently runninc F12? Well, if you want to do a yum update, you don't *need* the installer initrd to work :) There's no real reason you shouldn't be able to update to the F15 packages even without an installer, surely? Aside from the normal hiccups associated with doing yum updates? I'd be hesitant to suggest doing a yum update from f12 - f15. That is quite a gap, and the associated Provides/Obsoletes might not be able to account for it all. If one is determined enough it might work though. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
On Thursday, April 28, 2011 08:32:48 AM David Woodhouse wrote: On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 15:31 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Due to these installer problems we're probably not going to be able to have an official PowerPC release for Fedora 15, but the goal is to definitely get it done for Fedora 16. Am I interpreting this right that this effctively means we will have to run a new installation on PPC machines currently runninc F12? Well, if you want to do a yum update, you don't *need* the installer initrd to work :) There's no real reason you shouldn't be able to update to the F15 packages even without an installer, surely? Its actually pretty dicey, you would need a fully updated f12 since glibc requires a 2.6.32 kernel. and with the change from upstart to systemd. ive seen cases where the yum updated box wouldnt boot. and you cant go back to the older kernel to poke at things. Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 15:47 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Did you try it? And did it work? Normally yum will refuse to update when you try skipping more than a single version. Define 'refuse'. It doesn't even *know*, generally. I *often* update by two releases at a time. Sometimes more. -- dwmw2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
2011/4/28 Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de: Dear David Woodhouse, In message 1303997568.2912.117.ca...@macbook.infradead.org you wrote: There's no real reason you shouldn't be able to update to the F15 packages even without an installer, surely? Did you try it? And did it work? Normally yum will refuse to update when you try skipping more than a single version. I tried - it almost works (you need to turn selinux into a permissive mode before upgrade and it will require relabeling before turning it on again). -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/28/2011 10:26 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: 2011/4/28 Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de: Dear David Woodhouse, In message 1303997568.2912.117.ca...@macbook.infradead.org you wrote: There's no real reason you shouldn't be able to update to the F15 packages even without an installer, surely? Did you try it? And did it work? Normally yum will refuse to update when you try skipping more than a single version. I tried - it almost works (you need to turn selinux into a permissive mode before upgrade and it will require relabeling before turning it on again). Permissive mode should not require a relable (enforcing=0) If you disable selinux it will (selinux=0). What problem are you seeing? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk25fX8ACgkQrlYvE4MpobPouQCfZxJiBWqgoTu+ZsueWnvSyDKe 7d4AnRjlmna3TlzPIGlUBOTZWs799qZ5 =J437 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Phil Knirsch pknir...@redhat.com wrote: Hi everyone. Just wanted to give you all a brief heads up that Fedora on PPC as a secondary arch is still alive and kicking and no dead horse! On a more serious note, we've recently been catching up to the current Fedora 15 packages after PowerPC moved to secondary arch status after Fedora 12. This took a while, but thanks to pretty powerful builders and concentrated effort from the PowerPC team we've gotten pretty close to catching up by now. The current focus is to get the installer to work properly again. With the switch to Lorax, the new unified initrd and other changes we hit a few problems recently, but at least we've had a successful install with the latest mash trees on a Power7 machine recently via DVD [1]. Discussions are still ongoing on how to solve the unified initrd size problem though as currently for Power6 or Power5 the new initrd is just too large to ever work, even if it would be better compressed. So we might have to go back to a 2 stage install process for PowerPC at least, but very likely with a dracut based 1st stage then. As noted on IRC, the DVD doesn't support ppc32 machines. Are those being dropped, or is it simply a temporary omission? On a similar note, it seems the preference for packages is now ppc64 whereas in prior Fedora releases ppc was the perferred arch, even on 64-bit machines. RHEL 6 (and SLES 11) have made that changed, but it was rejected by FESCo prior to PowerPC being dropped as a primary architecture. Has the preference changed to 64-bit permanently? josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
Josh Boyer píše v Čt 28. 04. 2011 v 13:20 -0400: On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Phil Knirsch pknir...@redhat.com wrote: Hi everyone. Just wanted to give you all a brief heads up that Fedora on PPC as a secondary arch is still alive and kicking and no dead horse! On a more serious note, we've recently been catching up to the current Fedora 15 packages after PowerPC moved to secondary arch status after Fedora 12. This took a while, but thanks to pretty powerful builders and concentrated effort from the PowerPC team we've gotten pretty close to catching up by now. The current focus is to get the installer to work properly again. With the switch to Lorax, the new unified initrd and other changes we hit a few problems recently, but at least we've had a successful install with the latest mash trees on a Power7 machine recently via DVD [1]. Discussions are still ongoing on how to solve the unified initrd size problem though as currently for Power6 or Power5 the new initrd is just too large to ever work, even if it would be better compressed. So we might have to go back to a 2 stage install process for PowerPC at least, but very likely with a dracut based 1st stage then. As noted on IRC, the DVD doesn't support ppc32 machines. Are those being dropped, or is it simply a temporary omission? On a similar note, it seems the preference for packages is now ppc64 whereas in prior Fedora releases ppc was the perferred arch, even on 64-bit machines. RHEL 6 (and SLES 11) have made that changed, but it was rejected by FESCo prior to PowerPC being dropped as a primary architecture. Has the preference changed to 64-bit permanently? we can decide it ourselves now, so I'd go with 2 branches - ppc (32-bit) to satisfy people with eg. Mac G4 hardware and ppc64 (with 64-bit as preferred and 32-bit as compat, it's a known fact that Fedora serves as RHEL upstream) for G5s and IBM servers/workstations. Dan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote: Discussions are still ongoing on how to solve the unified initrd size problem though as currently for Power6 or Power5 the new initrd is just too large to ever work, even if it would be better compressed. So we might have to go back to a 2 stage install process for PowerPC at least, but very likely with a dracut based 1st stage then. As noted on IRC, the DVD doesn't support ppc32 machines. Are those being dropped, or is it simply a temporary omission? On a similar note, it seems the preference for packages is now ppc64 whereas in prior Fedora releases ppc was the perferred arch, even on 64-bit machines. RHEL 6 (and SLES 11) have made that changed, but it was rejected by FESCo prior to PowerPC being dropped as a primary architecture. Has the preference changed to 64-bit permanently? we can decide it ourselves now, so I'd go with 2 branches - ppc (32-bit) to satisfy people with eg. Mac G4 hardware and ppc64 (with 64-bit as preferred and 32-bit as compat, it's a known fact that Fedora serves as RHEL upstream) for G5s and IBM servers/workstations. I think it would be beneficial to spend a bit of time documenting the supported hardware and composition going forward. I have no personal preference on the bit-size issue, but it wasn't communicated on the list prior to my asking. Additional items to cover are: 1) Are ppc32 machines supported? Specifically I'm thinking of Apple G4 machines, but we used to build a bunch of Freescale device drivers and such as well for machines in the 6xx class. 2) Which machine type are supported? Seems POWER7, possibly POWER6 and 5. I would imagine we would want to explicitly drop PS3 support given it's limited memory (vs initrd) and the fact that it's not really sustainable as a machine due to firmware changes. However, do we support Apple G5 and Powerstation machines? (I think yes, but it's unclear). 3) Which arch is the primary on 64-bit (seems ppc64) josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: Additional items to cover are: 1) Are ppc32 machines supported? Specifically I'm thinking of Apple G4 machines, but we used to build a bunch of Freescale device drivers and such as well for machines in the 6xx class. We should definitely continue to support ppc32 machines. There are a *lot* of embedded ppc32 machines around. 2) Which machine type are supported? Seems POWER7, possibly POWER6 and 5. I would imagine we would want to explicitly drop PS3 support given it's limited memory (vs initrd) and the fact that it's not really sustainable as a machine due to firmware changes. However, do we support Apple G5 and Powerstation machines? (I think yes, but it's unclear). I think we should, yes. These things aren't that hard to support. We should try to avoid *actively* dropping things that used to work. 3) Which arch is the primary on 64-bit (seems ppc64) Ick, I really don't like that decision. The 32-bit userspace is *so* much better tested, and isn't register-starved like certain other architectures in 32-bit mode, so the major benefit of 64-bit mode just isn't there. But I suppose given that IBM have driven it through for RHEL and SLES, 64-bit userspace will be getting somewhat more testing. What packages still *don't* build in the 64-bit versions, and would be missing (or bizarrely 32-bit-only) if we have 64-bit as the primary arch on ppc64? We were typically just not caring about the PPC64 ExcludeArch tracker bug, although I have a distinct recollection of getting drunk in a Shanghai hotel room at one point and doing OCaml support. Is that still in the Fedora packages? -- dwmw2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
On 04/28/2011 01:36 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: 1) Are ppc32 machines supported? Specifically I'm thinking of Apple G4 machines, but we used to build a bunch of Freescale device drivers and such as well for machines in the 6xx class. Just from a demand perspective, this summer Apple will drop support for OSX 10.5 and within a short time leave Mac G4 users without security updates - there's a lot of decent hardware out there that's not quite five years old yet. Fedora 15 on ppc32 might just gain a number of new users at that point. Thanks for all the work! -Bill -- Bill McGonigle, Owner BFC Computing, LLC http://bfccomputing.com/ Telephone: +1.603.448.4440 Email, IM, VOIP: b...@bfccomputing.com VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf Social networks: bill_mcgonigle/bill.mcgonigle -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
Am 28.04.2011 20:24, schrieb David Woodhouse: On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: Additional items to cover are: 1) Are ppc32 machines supported? Specifically I'm thinking of Apple G4 machines, but we used to build a bunch of Freescale device drivers and such as well for machines in the 6xx class. We should definitely continue to support ppc32 machines. There are a *lot* of embedded ppc32 machines around. 2) Which machine type are supported? Seems POWER7, possibly POWER6 and 5. I would imagine we would want to explicitly drop PS3 support given it's limited memory (vs initrd) and the fact that it's not really sustainable as a machine due to firmware changes. However, do we support Apple G5 and Powerstation machines? (I think yes, but it's unclear). Well, as I have an Apple G5 and even created the mentioned DVD iso on it I will be quite unhappy if I can't install the latest Fedora on it. Looks good so far, even the big initrd isn't an issue on that machine as long as I don't try a network install (tftp limitations) . What packages still *don't* build in the 64-bit versions, and would be missing (or bizarrely 32-bit-only) if we have 64-bit as the primary arch on ppc64? We were typically just not caring about the PPC64 ExcludeArch tracker bug, although I have a distinct recollection of getting drunk in a Shanghai hotel room at one point and doing OCaml support. Is that still in the Fedora packages? Fortunately your ppc64 ocaml patch still works, although it got deleted on the primary archs. You don't happen to be in Germany anytime soon ? If getting you drunk results in a 64bit yaboot I'm sure I'll find a nice pub somewhere around here ;-) Creating 64bit images with an additional 32bit glibc just for yaboot is suboptimal, but seems to work so far. I stil need to convince mash to pull that in during the compose, though. I'd appreciate it if someone could have a look at yaboot, but if that's too much work we can keep it that way while waiting for grub2. Karsten -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora PPC status work in progress :)
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 23:47 +0200, Karsten Hopp wrote: Creating 64bit images with an additional 32bit glibc just for yaboot is suboptimal, but seems to work so far. Why does yaboot use glibc? Isn't it built with -nostdlib? The issue was libextfs.a, wasn't it? And didn't we solve that somehow? Would a 64-bit yaboot even *work* on most firmwares? My roaming the world and drinking is somewhat curtailed these days, but Berlin for GUADEC / Desktop Summit may be a possibility... -- dwmw2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
