[WBEL-devel] WBEL4 RC1 on VIA C3 CPU

[Johnny Hughes]

On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 21:01 -0500, John Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 12:26, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> 
> > The RHEL4 kernel doesn't support i586 ... I don't think that John modified
> > the WBEL4-RC1 boot kernel to support i586 either. (I could be wrong).
> > 
> > If WBEL4 is not going to support i586, you might try CentOS-4, as the boot
> > kernel for anaconda is i586 and there is i586 support.

> Boot kernels.  I want WBEL4 to be able to use vendor released driver
> discs for RHEL4.  When it builds the boot media it looks for
> kernel-BOOT, then i386, i586 and finally will take i686 if it is the
> only thing available.  For RHEL4 that is going to be i686 so any driver
> discs are going to be built for i686.
> 
> So we have a problem.  Looks like it is going to be possible to have
> Pentium support OR RHEL4 driver compatibility at install time but not
> both.  Or is there some way out of this paradox I'm just not seeing?
> 

That is exactly correct :) ... I have been playing with creating a CD-1
that is i586 and one that is i686.  boot.iso is too particular about the
rest of the image files (stage2 hard drive image, etc.) to work by
itself ... but I have had a little bit of success in creating separate
CDs.

> > Before anyone complains about CentOS trying to steal WBEL users ... I am
> > not.  If WBEL-4 supports i586 and your are a WBEL user, please use WBEL-4
> > :).  If not, I just wanted to point out that CentOS-4 might allow you to
> > install on that platform.
> 
> Actually it might be THE option for i586 support.  Since CentOS does
> exist and supports Pentium class hardware it might make more sense for
> WBEL to go for driver compatibility.  Migration between rebuilds is
> pretty simple so nobody gets orphaned without an upgrade path.

The i586 support for CentOS is going to be maintained in some form ...
but it might be as a separate CD-1 in the future.

> 
> Time for a fast debate folks.  Survivor time, who gets voted off the
> island, Epias or Enterprise hardware? The rebuild process is finally at
> a stage where I think all packages (on both arches) are going to build
> flawlessly on the pass currently running so it is this decision and
> installing Oracle to get tora right that are the only remaining holds.

> Assuming of course the compile doesn't hit yet another snag.  And of
> course I probably should go ahead and roll in the OO.o errata from this
> week to avoid THAT hog of a download after every install.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://beau.org/pipermail/whitebox-devel/attachments/20050429/74437df0/attachment.bin