Mailing List Archive

On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:25 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> this patch integrates the ia64 bootloader document into the common one
>
> perhaps it would make sense to re-architect the bootloader document like:
> hb-install-bootloader.xml
> hb-install-bootloader-grub.xml
> hb-install-bootloader-elilo.xml
> hb-install-bootloader-lilo.xml
> ...
> otherwise trying to integrate other bootloader documents isnt going to be
> fun ...

I agree, especially once/if elilo becomes a supported bootloader on
x86/amd64, due to Intel Mac machines.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 22:25 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> this patch integrates the ia64 bootloader document into the common one
>>
>> perhaps it would make sense to re-architect the bootloader document like:
>> hb-install-bootloader.xml
>> hb-install-bootloader-grub.xml
>> hb-install-bootloader-elilo.xml
>> hb-install-bootloader-lilo.xml
>> ...
>> otherwise trying to integrate other bootloader documents isnt going to be
>> fun ...

It makes less sense to split out/recombine the bootloader documents
based on bootloader choice, because then we'll have even more
unnecessary duplication of content. Right now, only amd64+x86 have a
combined bootloader page, because they're similar enough that we can do
conditionals for them. We don't have a single hb-install-bootloader doc,
just FYI, because each arch is different enough to require a unique
page, and I'm fine with that.

You're right, it wouldn't be fun to integrate other bootloader
documents; they're just too different already, so that's why we aren't
integrating them to this extent.

We'd copy 99% of the same text and only change the <pre>s for lilo or
grub if we split 'em based on bootloader choice, and that's just plain
silly. Makes maintainance harder, not easier....

> I agree, especially once/if elilo becomes a supported bootloader on
> x86/amd64, due to Intel Mac machines.

...Especially since only one or two arches (at most) *might* (as Chris
mentions) gain support for EFI. In other words, *if* that day comes, the
only place elilo would go is in the existing amd64+x86 combo page.

So, er, thanks, but no thanks? Is there a way to say that without
sounding rude? I appreciate the work, but there isn't a place for it at
the moment. :)

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> this patch integrates the ia64 bootloader document into the common one

Sorry, but it does not integrate.
What did you want to do with "Optional: Framebuffer"?
Keep it? Adapt it? It contains minute differences between x86 & amd64.

What about "Alternative: Using ELILO"?
ELILO is no alternative, it's the only bootloader. Or isn't it?

> perhaps it would make sense to re-architect the bootloader document like:
> hb-install-bootloader.xml
> hb-install-bootloader-grub.xml
> hb-install-bootloader-elilo.xml
> hb-install-bootloader-lilo.xml
> ...
> otherwise trying to integrate other bootloader documents isnt going to be
> fun ...

We have no such plan. We are definitely not going to merge palo/aboot/silo...

FYI, when we split up parts into ARCH-specific files, we had to choose between
splitting or inserting notes like "${ARCH} users should blah blah..." in
common files. We want to get rid of the latter. Besides, ARCH-specific files
that are very similar like x86 and amd64 were, it's worth using a single file.
ARCH-specific files that share only a bit of content are not worth merging.

If the framebuffer bit is needed on ia64, we might merge using your patch with
s/Alternative: Using ELILO/Default: Using ELILO/

If ELILO needs to be supported on x86/amd64, then we'd probably want to merge
x86/amd64/ia64 into a single bootloader.xml

At the moment, of the 4 ia64-specific files, the bootloader one is the most
different and the least likely to be worth merging with x86/amd64.


Cheers,
--
/ Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/
/\ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/
--
gentoo-doc@gentoo.org mailing list

so which is ? first people complain when i made ia64 specific documents, now
people complain when i try to combine them
-mike

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> so which is ? first people complain when i made ia64 specific documents, now
> people complain when i try to combine them

Nothing's changed. ARCH-specific files that have hardly anything in common
with other files are fully justified. This applies to
hb-install-ia64-bootloader.xml: no framebuffer, no gub, no lilo, and elilo
which is ia64-only.
I haven't checked hb-install-ia64-{medium,disk,kernel}.xml but I have a hunch
they share quite a bit with x86 & amd64. You should know that better than
anyone else as you added/edited/removed bits from an x86 or amd64 version to
create the ia64 files.


Cheers,
--
/ Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/
/\ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/
--
gentoo-doc@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tuesday 13 February 2007, Xavier Neys wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > so which is ? first people complain when i made ia64 specific documents,
> > now people complain when i try to combine them
>
> Nothing's changed. ARCH-specific files that have hardly anything in common
> with other files are fully justified. This applies to
> hb-install-ia64-bootloader.xml: no framebuffer, no gub, no lilo, and elilo
> which is ia64-only.

not quite:
- ia64 does support framebuffer console
- grub will have ia64 support (it doesnt at the moment)
- elilo is not (and hasnt been for quite sometime) ia64 specific

so if you want to keep the status quo now, fine, but i'm looking long term
here
-mike

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 February 2007, Xavier Neys wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> so which is ? first people complain when i made ia64 specific documents,
>>> now people complain when i try to combine them
>> Nothing's changed. ARCH-specific files that have hardly anything in common
>> with other files are fully justified. This applies to
>> hb-install-ia64-bootloader.xml: no framebuffer, no gub, no lilo, and elilo
>> which is ia64-only.
>
> not quite:
> - ia64 does support framebuffer console

You never mentioned this and your original did not document the framebuffer.
I made it look like the AMD64 version, if it needs to be different, please let
us know.

> - grub will have ia64 support (it doesnt at the moment)
> - elilo is not (and hasnt been for quite sometime) ia64 specific

At the moment, it's very much (elilo==IA64).

> so if you want to keep the status quo now, fine, but i'm looking long term
> here

We'll change whatever needs to be changed then, maybe even with some kind of
include foo, thought process is still running ;-)

BTW, do you still want the IA64 handbook to be "hidden" or can we index it
like the others?


Cheers,
--
/ Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/
/\ http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/

> > - elilo is not (and hasnt been for quite sometime) ia64 specific
>
> At the moment, it's very much (elilo==IA64).

Point of clarification...elilo can be used on all kits that use EFI
which at the moment includes IA64 *and* Intel based Mac boxes which are
amd64 kits for our purposes.

--Dan

On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 11:04 -0700, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> > > - elilo is not (and hasnt been for quite sometime) ia64 specific
> >
> > At the moment, it's very much (elilo==IA64).
>
> Point of clarification...elilo can be used on all kits that use EFI
> which at the moment includes IA64 *and* Intel based Mac boxes which are
> amd64 kits for our purposes.

Oh...I forgot, there are a few XScale based arm systems that use EFI
too, don't know if we support them though, plus the original mactels
based on the core-solo were x86 machines (no 64-bit extension). So it
really is much more wide spread then just IA64.

On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 11:04 -0700, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> > > - elilo is not (and hasnt been for quite sometime) ia64 specific
> >
> > At the moment, it's very much (elilo==IA64).
>
> Point of clarification...elilo can be used on all kits that use EFI
> which at the moment includes IA64 *and* Intel based Mac boxes which are
> amd64 kits for our purposes.

Well, Intel-based Macs are based on both the Core (no 64-bit extensions)
and Core 2 chips. Also, there are many EFI-based Intel x86 server
boards. The reason it was never a problem is these boards have BIOS
emulation enabled, which the Intel Macs do not.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation