[arch-dev-public] Syslinux 6.0 released with efi support
Hi, my plan for this release will be to replace the syslinux package with syslinux-bios and package the efi part as syslinux-efi package. This will be like the grub packages. Any objections? greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
Am 21.06.2013 11:52, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
Hi, my plan for this release will be to replace the syslinux package with syslinux-bios and package the efi part as syslinux-efi package. This will be like the grub packages.
Cant we just use one package? Unless this is required by upstream (e.g. conflicting file names) I would not split this. The grub packages are a mess. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Am 21.06.2013 11:52, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
Hi, my plan for this release will be to replace the syslinux package with syslinux-bios and package the efi part as syslinux-efi package. This will be like the grub packages.
Cant we just use one package? Unless this is required by upstream (e.g. conflicting file names) I would not split this. The grub packages are a mess.
+1 on that. I read the message from Keshav and also discussed a bit with him online. This is my take on the situation: There is no need to split up the syslinux package at all (nor grub for that matter) except if we want to support running 32-bit kernel together with 64-bit efi. We don't want to do that as, to the best of my knowledge, on any machine with 64-bit efi one can also use a 64-bit kernel, so I don't think this case is worth taking into consideration. Moreover, I think that using a different arch in the firmware and the kernel is not a good idea in general (even with 32-bit efi and 64-bit kernel, which in principle could boot). Unless the situation has changed, the kernel will apparently not be able to speak with the firmware after boot [0]. I dropped cross-arch support from gummiboot some time ago, and never heard a complaint. I suggest we do that everywhere, unless anyone can show a use-case where it is needed, and actually works as expected. Cheers, Tom [0]: <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746421#c1> (thanks to Keshav for the reference).
Am 21.06.2013 16:59, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
There is no need to split up the syslinux package at all (nor grub for that matter) except if we want to support running 32-bit kernel together with 64-bit efi. We don't want to do that as, to the best of my knowledge, on any machine with 64-bit efi one can also use a 64-bit kernel, so I don't think this case is worth taking into consideration.
I think you are forgetting about BIOS here: For syslinux-bios, you always need 32 bit .c32 modules regardless of architecture. For efi, you need .c32 modules matching your architecture. So, for x86_64, the package would contain both 32 (for bios) and 64 bit (for efi) .c32 modules?
participants (4)
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tobias Powalowski
-
Tom Gundersen