Bug 526320
| Summary: | ppc64.img and ppc32.img missing from tree | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | James Laska <jlaska> |
| Component: | anaconda | Assignee: | David Cantrell <dcantrell> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | anaconda-maint-list, dcantrell, jturner, vanmeeuwen+fedora |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-10-09 15:52:45 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 507678 | ||
|
Description
James Laska
2009-09-29 19:48:52 UTC
The more I think about this, the more I think this makes sense as a beta blocker. These images were present in F-12-Alpha and are used by IBM for installation. Unintentionally dropping installation images between F-12-Alpha nd F-12-Beta seems to be something we can/should avoid. I did some minor looking into this, but I'm going to need access to some fast PPC machinery to really dig into it. I'm trying to arrange that today to run buildinstall in debug mode to see why the zimage call is failing for ppc64. Ok, there are multiple things going on here. Previously, the 32bit bootwrapper file was used to create both the ppc64.img and the ppc32.img file. Apparently this was wrong and a change was committed to fix this ( http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/anaconda/?p=anaconda.git;a=commit;h=cfc7d65e177778de6bec27e708c28bad3ae88c03 ) to use the proper arch's wrapper file. However in Fedora, kernel-bootwrapper isn't multilib, so there is only the ppc32 package in the tree. Not only that, but if the ppc64 wrapper call fails, the netboot/ directory is never created, and thus the subsequent ppc32 wrapper call (which should succeed) will also fail, leaving no images. To fix this, we need to make sure the ppc64 version of kernel-bootwrapper gets installed into the chroot made by upd-instroot. Optionally we can fix the 32bit wrapper call to make sure the netboot directory is there before trying to use it. I sent a patch to at least get the 32bit netboot image created again, and to keep from putting a image file that doesn't exist in the .treeinfo file. A final patch sent that should make this code set work both on a 32bit userland and a 64bit userland. Testing the netboot image made of a 64bit kernel using the 32bit bootwrapper, but if it worked at Alpha, it should continue to work now. Tested a ppc64.img provided by jkeating (http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-20090924/development/ppc/os/images/netboot/ppc64.img). This image fails to properly boot, but so does F-12-Alpha (F-11-GOLD works). This will need to be tracked in a different bug and is outside the scope of the reported issue. Ok, so I'm not sure this should block Beta, especially if it hasn't worked since at least Alpha. I guess we'll have to pinpoint when it stopped working. Actually this bug was mostly about the images not showing up. I think we can close this particular bug, and open a new one for the images not functioning. James, can you file a new bug with the data from the non-boot? (In reply to comment #7) > Ok, so I'm not sure this should block Beta, especially if it hasn't worked > since at least Alpha. I guess we'll have to pinpoint when it stopped working. > Actually this bug was mostly about the images not showing up. > I think we can > close this particular bug, and open a new one for the images not functioning. > James, can you file a new bug with the data from the non-boot? I agree, no objections. The new bug to track ppc64.img not booting is bug#527506 (In reply to comment #5) > A final patch sent that should make this code set work both on a 32bit userland > and a 64bit userland. Testing the netboot image made of a 64bit kernel using > the 32bit bootwrapper, but if it worked at Alpha, it should continue to work > now. 'm not seeing ppc64.img in current (or recent rawhide) since this issue was closed. Has the patch been accepted? Looks like it's there now with the *latest* rawhide compose. http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-20091009/development/ppc/os/images/netboot/ |