On 3/9/06, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
