From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1VmhvP-0006ia-8Q for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:37:23 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34705) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VmhvD-0006hZ-SE for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:37:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vmhv5-0004yC-De for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:37:11 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c01::232]:37697) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vmhv5-0004wq-62 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:37:03 -0500 Received: by mail-ea0-f178.google.com with SMTP id d10so7471007eaj.37 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 02:37:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=5KTJx9eb6sFHkIeIELGvF4Mk+RCr1msz49SOIiu+ZxY=; b=Dv3W/pVHuz4LQD3YsPILGcBFMkdNXj46uhj7bJOjkMpT/M8aDCsh3Y9F+xY1VmOUkf Ke7RtjKsCn6hmPCXf/NuW6XT7BIckhfrQ270UsPsILq0Wti3ghQZqTBOy0PspaK3RjLV kez/CERN/z0RMBP5ZueCjt9gdE/1JQ6zVPRA1NtLpW3IXnobe9tbZr+vcTBjf5ATlPcy s25l3dfP6wF8aU5Q1Op1g9HpHH9/qlKllhponSFJYc20O37vRsnuUzrOjlaC+7DvCx5I z+Tzq3LOKkZsnPyQe/KXqasDmRmcBNmkBUmNl4QoLXrT23HL4ZkR193JDybXf/Uq+Jbn RKrg== X-Received: by 10.15.50.195 with SMTP id l43mr57128047eew.30.1385807821766; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 02:37:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.16] (31-249.1-85.cust.bluewin.ch. [85.1.249.31]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b41sm26308904eef.16.2013.11.30.02.37.00 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 30 Nov 2013 02:37:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5299BFC6.7000304@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:36:54 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltaXIgJ8+GLWNvZGVyL3BoY29kZXInIFNlcmJpbmVua28=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131005 Icedove/17.0.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: grub-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: pvgrub2 is merged References: <527EA084.6000706@gmail.com> <20131129132422.GC16321@riva.ucam.org> In-Reply-To: <20131129132422.GC16321@riva.ucam.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2UKPQAIPJHRITSSINRUAW" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4013:c01::232 X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 10:37:20 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2UKPQAIPJHRITSSINRUAW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 29.11.2013 14:24, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 09:52:20PM +0100, Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcode= r' Serbinenko wrote: >> Hello, all. pvgrub2 has just became part of upstream grub as ports >> i386-xen and x86_64-xen. >=20 > Could anyone offer packaging advice for which ports should be built > here? Is it reasonable to assume that a 32-bit userspace only needs th= e > 32-bit Xen port and a 64-bit userspace only needs the 64-bit Xen port, > or is it possible that there could be cross-architecture combinations > here? Does the architecture of the GRUB port have to match the > architecture of the Xen hypervisor? >=20 GRUB port has to match the architecture of domU kernel. This is limitation of Xen architecture and it's one that is difficult to change and it's unlikely to be. But the architecture of Dom0 may be different from DomU one. Typically grub-xen would installed on host and not guest. Packaging should provide grub.xen standalone file. I intend to add grub.xen compilation target to upstream once we gathered information on what we put in grub.cfg there. > For those familiar with Debian packaging, I'm trying to work out whethe= r > it's sufficient to just build grub-xen{,-bin,-dbg} packages which would= > be i386-xen on i386 and x86_64-xen on amd64, or whether I have to have > two variants on each architecture the way I do for EFI. We need 2 variants as it's common enouh to run 32-bit VMs on 64-bit host and grub-xen is typically on host. > All other > things being equal I'd prefer to keep the package count as low as > possible, but only if that won't break real-world use cases. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 ------enig2UKPQAIPJHRITSSINRUAW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREKAAYFAlKZv8wACgkQmBXlbbo5nOuhDwD/WlKRqqL6WIPLHKWs7YdyKo6T pXRaH8WFzPPbsSOQFkYA/jI7/p8ax4KrmYnIqLAkULT2TURO64RYu6W+a6dGBmPp =MLta -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2UKPQAIPJHRITSSINRUAW--