Re: [Xen-devel] pvgrub2 is merged

[Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ð Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:24:22 +0000
Colin Watson <cjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> ÐÐÑÐÑ:

> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 09:52:20PM +0100, Vladimir 'Ï-coder/phcoder' 
> Serbinenko wrote:
> > Hello, all. pvgrub2 has just became part of upstream grub as ports
> > i386-xen and x86_64-xen.
> 
> Could anyone offer packaging advice for which ports should be built
> here?  Is it reasonable to assume that a 32-bit userspace only needs the
> 32-bit Xen port and a 64-bit userspace only needs the 64-bit Xen port,
> or is it possible that there could be cross-architecture combinations
> here?  Does the architecture of the GRUB port have to match the
> architecture of the Xen hypervisor?
> 

I guess this question is better asked on xen-devel. Assuming we have 64
bit dom0 and try to boot 32 bit domU. Is it possible to start with
loading 64 bit grub that loads 32 bit kernel and jumps to it? If yes
(and in other direction too) situation becomes relatively simple.

> For those familiar with Debian packaging, I'm trying to work out whether
> it's sufficient to just build grub-xen{,-bin,-dbg} packages which would
> be i386-xen on i386 and x86_64-xen on amd64, or whether I have to have
> two variants on each architecture the way I do for EFI.  All other
> things being equal I'd prefer to keep the package count as low as
> possible, but only if that won't break real-world use cases.
> 

For a long time I dream of possibility to mark grub platform packages
as noarch (speaking about RPM) - they *are* noarch from the OS PoV. I
was told that was impossible, but may be I should try once more.

This would mean one platform - one package that can be installed
everywhere.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel