From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Otto Solares Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:55:30 +0000 Subject: Re: SILO 1.4.2 released Message-Id: <20040129205530.GC14503@guug.org> List-Id: References: <20040129182954.GK532@phunnypharm.org> In-Reply-To: <20040129182954.GK532@phunnypharm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:30:39PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:34:02PM -0600, Otto Solares wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:29:54PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > > I've tested and fixed initrd support for sparc64, so that's safe. > > > > > > I've also cleaned up some things. Upon further testing, I was able to > > > boot a 6.8Meg image. Not sure why it didn't work the first time, but > > > beware it may be flakey. > > > > > > I'm a little disappointed. I haven't gotten any feedback from people > > > testing this new version. So either no one cares, or it works good and > > > people don't want to waste their time sending "worked for me" emails :) > > > > > > Usual place: http://www.sparc-boot.org/pub/silo/ > > > > You talk something about needed kernel changes to properly use this > > new silo, where are the patches or 2.6.2-rc2-bk3 is good for testing? > > You didn't read everything I said then. I said to make use of the larger > kernel sizes, you need the kernel patches, but to use this silo, you > don't. I wanted to make sure it didn't break existing installs. That's the point, test the larger kernel sizes. Is pointless to ask people to test larger sizes and don't provide or make clear where the kernel patches are. So my original question remains. -solca