Heads-up: Requiring PAE for running Xen

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Am Samstag, den 20.05.2006, 17:46 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm:
> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 05:40:20PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 20.05.2006, 16:14 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm: 
> > > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 02:07:59PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > > > As we move forward with Xen enablement, there's a desire for
> > > > being able to access more than 4 gigs of RAM on 32-bit Xen hosts.  The
> > > > options for handling this are
> > > [...] 
> > > > 2) Switch the 32-bit xen kernels to require PAE.  For most "current"
> > > > non-laptop hardware, this is a non-issue.  It does mean that xen won't
> > > > work a lot of earlier PentiumM laptops
> > > [...]
> > > > Given these, we're looking at going with #2 and thus only having Xen
> > > > work on PAE-capable hardware in the development tree.  And we're
> > > > planning to try to execute this switchover the beginning of next week.
> > > > Note that this will not affect bare metal installs at all.
> > > [...] 
> > > So maybe rawhide should continue with both PAE and non-PAE kernels and
> > > decide on dropping the non-PAE when a release is about to be cut?
> > > Otherwise you will keep out a large amount of (admittedly casual)
> > > testers.
> > 
> > Well, I was always against kernel's in Fedora Extras (and I still am,
> > [mostly]). But having a Xen non-PAE kernel in Extras sounds like the
> > proper solution for the above problem. But having kernels in Extras
> > would only be okay for me if
> > - they are build with the same spec-file as the other kernels
> > - they are build on the same build system in the same step as the other
> > kernels
> > - they are moved to the proper Extras repo in the same moment as the
> > other kernels are pushed out
> > 
> > There are some technical problems that probably would need to be solved
> > before the above could be realized, but that should be possible if we
> > really want to.
> 
> Basically you want src.rpms in Core, but a way to move subpackages
> from a "Core build" to Extras, correct?

Yes.

> That only covers Jeremy's "no place on CD" point, what about
> migration and maintenance/security etc.?

Build from the same specfile in the same step as the other
(kernel-)packages, so maintenance/security is and should still be in the
hands of the core maintainer. 

CU
thl


-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>