Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:39:29PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 14:09 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2009-09-10 01:22]: Why? The /dev/ram* devices are not needed anymore for the early boot with 2.6 kernels, unless there is something fundamental I am missing this driver should become modular. Apparently it used to be needed by debian-installer, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more. If it's not, I'll change it to a module. Given the lack of response, I'm assuming this is OK to change. mips still uses an initrd for d-i but it sets CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y explicitly in the mips config, so that's fine. I noticed that some i386 floppy images use ext2, but I've no idea how the floppy images work. i386/floppy/net-drivers-1.cfg:INITRD_FS=ext2 i386/floppy/net-drivers-3.cfg:INITRD_FS = ext2 i386/floppy/cd-drivers.cfg:INITRD_FS=ext2 i386/floppy/net-drivers-2.cfg:INITRD_FS = ext2 Is installation from floppies still supported? If so, can they be converted to using initramfs? Actually, I don't see how this can work today since ext2 is a module... Has anyone tested that these work in lenny? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Ben Hutchings wrote: Is installation from floppies still supported? If so, can they be converted to using initramfs? Actually, I don't see how this can work today since ext2 is a module... Has anyone tested that these work in lenny? There are no floppy images in Lenny. We stopped building them because the kernel would no longer fit on the boot floppy. There was some discussion on having a separate kernel for D-I floppy installs (it would still fit with a number of unneeded optionsdisabled), but that was blocked by the kernel team as they did not want to build a separate flavor for that purpose. The infrastructure for building floppy images is still present and it could be in theory be enabled again. I see that INITRD_FS = ext2 is set for the _driver_ floppies, but not for the _boot_ floppy, so a modular ext2 should be OK in principle. We also have: ./config/armel/ads.cfg:11:INITRD_FS = ext2 No idea about this, although I think I saw a reply from Martin about it (specifically enabled in the armel config IIRC). ./config/powerpc/apus.cfg:9:INITRD_FS = ext2 Wouldn't worry about that. It's a dead configuration. Please go ahead with any changes you have planned. If we wish to enable floppy builds again at some point we can always revisit the issue. And if we'd be able to get a separate flavor for that purpose I guess it won't be an issue. Apologies for not replying sooner, but I had hoped that finally someone else would make the effort to respond to such questions. An idle hope apparently. Cheers, FJP signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote: On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Ben Hutchings wrote: Is installation from floppies still supported? If so, can they be converted to using initramfs? Actually, I don't see how this can work today since ext2 is a module... Has anyone tested that these work in lenny? There are no floppy images in Lenny. We stopped building them because the kernel would no longer fit on the boot floppy. There was some discussion on having a separate kernel for D-I floppy installs (it would still fit with a number of unneeded optionsdisabled), but that was blocked by the kernel team as they did not want to build a separate flavor for that purpose. But the installer does not need a separate kernel. It just needs a smaller one. And the kernel team are already supporting several smaller (older) kernels. So why can't all of the the lenny/squeeze installations be done with the kernel from etch or even sarge? This would seem to be completely within the jurisdiction of the installer team. Am I missing something? Lee Winter NP Engineering Nashua, New Hampshire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Lee Winter wrote: So why can't all of the the lenny/squeeze installations be done with the kernel from etch or even sarge? This would seem to be completely within the jurisdiction of the installer team. Am I missing something? 1) Because it still needs to be able to boot on the same (modern) hardware as the installed system, and work with current versions of udev, and ... 2) Because using completely different kernel versions in installer builds is asking for problems. 3) Because of source compliance rules: the source for that older kernel would still have to be included in the current release. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
* Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl [2009-09-16 18:07]: We also have: ./config/armel/ads.cfg:11:INITRD_FS = ext2 No idea about this, although I think I saw a reply from Martin about it (specifically enabled in the armel config IIRC). We don't have a kernel for ADS in Debian, we merely provide a ramdisk. I asked Joey whether we can convert the image to an initramfs but this isn't of high priority. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote: On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Lee Winter wrote: So why can't all of the the lenny/squeeze installations be done with the kernel from etch or even sarge? This would seem to be completely within the jurisdiction of the installer team. Am I missing something? 1) Because it still needs to be able to boot on the same (modern) hardware as the installed system, and work with current versions of udev, and ... Nah. The whole point is to support legacy systems that are capable of _running_ the newest software, but whose peripheral suite is not adequte to _bootstrap_ the larger images. is it your belief that the existing 2.4+backports would not work? 2) Because using completely different kernel versions in installer builds is asking for problems. OK, what problems? After all once any kernel is loaded, even 2.0, you can then obtain the newest kernel and associated rd image (no ISO at all) and just reboot into it. 3) Because of source compliance rules: the source for that older kernel would still have to be included in the current release. What does included mean? Is the source for, say, 2.4, going away or being hidden at some point? -- Lee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:24:00PM -0400, Lee Winter wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote: On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Ben Hutchings wrote: Is installation from floppies still supported? If so, can they be converted to using initramfs? Actually, I don't see how this can work today since ext2 is a module... Has anyone tested that these work in lenny? There are no floppy images in Lenny. We stopped building them because the kernel would no longer fit on the boot floppy. There was some discussion on having a separate kernel for D-I floppy installs (it would still fit with a number of unneeded optionsdisabled), but that was blocked by the kernel team as they did not want to build a separate flavor for that purpose. But the installer does not need a separate kernel. It just needs a smaller one. And the kernel team are already supporting several smaller (older) kernels. We (primarily Dann Frazier) provide security support for oldstable and stable, and we apply selected bug fixes and hardware support improvements to stable. So why can't all of the the lenny/squeeze installations be done with the kernel from etch or even sarge? This would seem to be completely within the jurisdiction of the installer team. Am I missing something? The fact that those kernels lack support for many devices that are common in currently shipping hardware, and for the filesystems that users may wish to create at installation time. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
(No need to CC me on replies.) On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Lee Winter wrote: Nah. The whole point is to support legacy systems that are capable of _running_ the newest software, but whose peripheral suite is not adequte to _bootstrap_ the larger images. is it your belief that the existing 2.4+backports would not work? No. The floppy method is NOT targeted only at legacy systems. If it cannot exist as a full-featured installation method on the same level as other installation methods, then there is no point in maintaining it. Real legacy systems can always install Sarge and upgrade too. I'm sorry, but this is the last post from me in this thread. I appreciate your idea, but it's just not an approach that I at least would ever want to follow. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:24:00PM -0400, Lee Winter wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote: On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Ben Hutchings wrote: Is installation from floppies still supported? If so, can they be converted to using initramfs? Actually, I don't see how this can work today since ext2 is a module... Has anyone tested that these work in lenny? There are no floppy images in Lenny. We stopped building them because the kernel would no longer fit on the boot floppy. There was some discussion on having a separate kernel for D-I floppy installs (it would still fit with a number of unneeded optionsdisabled), but that was blocked by the kernel team as they did not want to build a separate flavor for that purpose. But the installer does not need a separate kernel. It just needs a smaller one. And the kernel team are already supporting several smaller (older) kernels. We (primarily Dann Frazier) provide security support for oldstable and stable, and we apply selected bug fixes and hardware support improvements to stable. OK, so those are all reasonable candidates for use in booting the installer. So why can't all of the the lenny/squeeze installations be done with the kernel from etch or even sarge? This would seem to be completely within the jurisdiction of the installer team. Am I missing something? The fact that those kernels lack support for many devices that are common in currently shipping hardware, and for the filesystems that users may wish to create at installation time. OK, the smaller kernels do not have the feature set necessary to operate the installer. But they probably have the feature set necessary to boot the installer. The boot kernel does not need to support all of the installer features. The boot kernel only needs to acquire the current kernel and associated initrd. Now a machine for which floppies are the best install medium is hardly going to have the latest and greatest hardware, so the presence of that hardware is an implicit violation of the premise that floppies are the user's best option for getting Debian going. So the smaller kernel probably does support the network hardware on the kind of machines floppies are /g/o/o/d/ adequate for. It appears to me that the floopy boot software only needs to do three things. -- load from a cold-boot floppy -- (down)load the kernel and associated initrd [1] -- run grub aimed at the downloaded images [1] If the network hardware is truly arcane the files could be loaded from successor floppies. Or from any other medium that happens not to be bootable such as an LS-120, USB drive, CD drive (worst case might be a Bantam Backpack over a parallel port), or network card. How would the presence of the latest and greatest hardware interfere with that sequence? I suspect that it would not. The issue would be the lack of hardware contemporary to the smaller kernel. But that issue is a non-problem for the target machine population. -- Lee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote: (No need to CC me on replies.) On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Lee Winter wrote: Nah. The whole point is to support legacy systems that are capable of _running_ the newest software, but whose peripheral suite is not adequte to _bootstrap_ the larger images. is it your belief that the existing 2.4+backports would not work? No. The floppy method is NOT targeted only at legacy systems. If it cannot exist as a full-featured installation method on the same level as other installation methods, then there is no point in maintaining it. ... I'm sorry, but this is the last post from me in this thread. OK, be like that. ;-) Seriously, while I respect your decision to not pursue the suggestion, I would still appreciate understanding the reasons why you find the suggestion intolerable. The specific questions that appear to be unanswered are: -- What is the offensive defect in the floppy boot installation method if it results in a full featured system post-install? -- In there in fact an offensive defect if the floppy boot process produces the current installer operating over a current kernel? -- What does on the same level mean if something other than the current installer operating over a current kernel? Real legacy systems can always install Sarge and upgrade too. Point taken. Laborious, but effective. I appreciate your idea, but it's just not an approach that I at least would ever want to follow. OK. -- Lee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 14:09 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2009-09-10 01:22]: Why? The /dev/ram* devices are not needed anymore for the early boot with 2.6 kernels, unless there is something fundamental I am missing this driver should become modular. Apparently it used to be needed by debian-installer, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more. If it's not, I'll change it to a module. Given the lack of response, I'm assuming this is OK to change. mips still uses an initrd for d-i but it sets CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y explicitly in the mips config, so that's fine. I noticed that some i386 floppy images use ext2, but I've no idea how the floppy images work. i386/floppy/net-drivers-1.cfg:INITRD_FS=ext2 i386/floppy/net-drivers-3.cfg:INITRD_FS = ext2 i386/floppy/cd-drivers.cfg:INITRD_FS=ext2 i386/floppy/net-drivers-2.cfg:INITRD_FS = ext2 Is installation from floppies still supported? If so, can they be converted to using initramfs? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings This sentence contradicts itself - no actually it doesn't. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2009-09-10 01:22]: Why? The /dev/ram* devices are not needed anymore for the early boot with 2.6 kernels, unless there is something fundamental I am missing this driver should become modular. Apparently it used to be needed by debian-installer, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more. If it's not, I'll change it to a module. Given the lack of response, I'm assuming this is OK to change. mips still uses an initrd for d-i but it sets CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y explicitly in the mips config, so that's fine. I noticed that some i386 floppy images use ext2, but I've no idea how the floppy images work. i386/floppy/net-drivers-1.cfg:INITRD_FS=ext2 i386/floppy/net-drivers-3.cfg:INITRD_FS = ext2 i386/floppy/cd-drivers.cfg:INITRD_FS=ext2 i386/floppy/net-drivers-2.cfg:INITRD_FS = ext2 -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian-installer use of initrd (was Re: CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM=y)
On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 19:03 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: Marco d'Itri wrote: Why? The /dev/ram* devices are not needed anymore for the early boot with 2.6 kernels, unless there is something fundamental I am missing this driver should become modular. Apparently it used to be needed by debian-installer, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more. If it's not, I'll change it to a module. Given the lack of response, I'm assuming this is OK to change. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Who are all these weirdos? - David Bowie, about L-Space IRC channel #afp signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
