FC5 Final Release

[Bela Pesics]

On 3/9/06, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Stanton Finley wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 01:14 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 22:26 -0700, Stanton Finley wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178143
> >>>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182147
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>These appear to be machine specific, and need a fix from the machine
> >>provider.  Not sure if this is something we can fix in Fedora space.


Why from the machine provider? How can you imagine that?
If we can't fix it, at least I have to find a solution for my own poor
laptop... :-)


> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This then begs the question why do the FC2, FC3, and FC4 installation
> >media boot and install on the same machine without incident? What's
> >different about the FC5 installation image kernel and can it be fixed?
> >
> >
> Syslinux changes seem to affect some specific hardware everytime. Its
> hard to figure out this without the relevant hardware which is not there
> internally. Changing syslinux late in the release cycle might create
> problems like the infamous one in which FC4 wouldnt bootup on some Intel
> chipsets, without feeding in garbage at the bootup prompt, which again
> wasnt there in our labs
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=159026).  Not sure
> there are easy resolutions to such issues.
>

Is "vmlinuz initrd=initrd.img" considered to be a garbage in this case?
If so, what is the way of making sure this is really an upstream bug?

Bela