[Fedora-livecd-list] PowerPC support.

[David Woodhouse]

On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 13:33 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:31 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > At http://git.infradead.org/?p=users/dwmw2/livecd-ppc.git
> > (git://git.infradead.org/~dwmw2/livecd-ppc.git) there's a set of patches
> > which first introduces a little abstraction for the arch-specific
> > configureBootloader() and createIso() functions, then implements the PPC
> > version.
> 
> Cool -- there's definitely some abstraction needed, the question is more
> of where to put them.  I think what might make sense is to get a few
> little things in the tree (like J5's fixes so that things work with FC6)
> and then branch off what we'll use for F7 and then continue to use HEAD
> so we can start doing more things like some of the refactoring from
> markmc as well as getting the architecture bits cleanly separated out.
> 
> I'll try to get to making progress on that this afternoon.

OK, thanks. There are a few details to be tidied up in the ppc
bootloader support but it's basically there. The main thing missing is
the 64-bit kernel.

> > 1.  Allow mayflower path to be specified, to run from git tree
> 
> I wonder if instead of specifying a path, it makes more sense to just
> notice that you're running from the git tree and use the mayflower
> script from there.  The only problem is that sort of opens up to a
> certain class of attack.  I'm not sure how important it really is to
> care about it, though.

Yeah, I thought about that but I lack the wit for it -- what you see in
the git tree is the most python I've ever done :)

> > 2,  Remove syslinux from package lists; add it dynamically instead.
> 
> The only problem with this is that it somewhat breaks the abstraction --
> maybe some distro using livecd-tools needs the isolinux package for
> those bits.  Does an error get raised with non-existent packages right
> now?

Yes. Although there is perhaps some logic in using --skip-broken.

-- 
dwmw2