This is getting really interesting :-) I would like to argue like Jonathan about the testing environment, but I think Phill has very good intuition or knows something we don't know, or maybe it is a simple boot option issue.
I used the alternate iso to install the Lubuntu Saucy alpha 2 32-bit alternate iso into a USB HDD using manual partitioning. (I did not want to mess with the installed systems on the internal drive.) I did it in this Dell Pentium 4 computer http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/dim4600/en/4600i/sm/specs.htm I got the red screen about no network, but could continue (with files from the iso file). When rebooting the Dell, I had this error error: file '/boot/grub/i386-pc/normal.mod' not found grub rescue> I powered off and cold booted, but the same error. I moved the USB HDD to the 64-bit laptop http://www.toshiba.se/laptops/satellite-pro/c850/satellite-pro-c850-19w/ and found the file, which was reported not found by the Dell. Then I booted from the USB HDD, and it boots and run beautifully :-) except that there is no zRAM, but it was expected since I had to upgrade the kernel when running in VBox to get zRAM. The following terminal output was transferred via ssh to my main computer guru@alt-saucy:~$ uname -a Linux alt-saucy 3.10.0-4-generic #13-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jul 18 19:25:05 UTC 2013 i686 i686 i686 GNU/Linux guru@alt-saucy:~$ lsb_release -a No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description: Ubuntu Saucy Salamander (development branch) Release: 13.10 Codename: saucy guru@alt-saucy:~$ swapon -s Filename Type Size Used Priority /dev/sdb5 partition 4073468 0 -1 guru@alt-saucy:~$ So there is something fishy. The installer can make a working Lubuntu 32-bit system, but it does not work in the computer where it was made, but in another one, that happens to be a 64-bit computer. I think this needs more investigation. I hope *you* will find it interesting enough to test in your computer :-) I'll check if a boot option or some other simple trick can make the Dell boot, but I have not needed boot options before in this computer. Best regards Nio On 2013-07-25 04:31, Jonathan Marsden wrote:> On 07/24/2013 06:07 PM, Phill Whiteside wrote: > >> I think that everyone missed what I mentioned. That is the >> virtualisation of a 32 bit processor from a VM running on a 64 bit >> host. In kvm, i can choose from various pentium models, basic kvm32 >> etc. etc. And whilst VM's can never take the place of actual >> hardware, when we need some i386 iso's testing to get them released, >> getting a VM to as near as to a 32 bit system to try them on is far >> better than just 'ticking' the box and saying it works. > > So you want the virtualization environment to not show CPU flags > indicating the CPU is 64-bit capable? Or to trap on all 64bit > instructions? Both? > > At first thought, all this really tests is that the compiler used for > the i386 code generation did not accidentally generate 64bit > instructions... is that what you are wanting to test? > > Can't you run just file on all binaries installed and verify they are > 32bit i386 binaries, and be done with it? Something like: > > file /bin/* /usr/bin/* |grep executable |grep -v 'script\|32-bit' > > would list any 64-bit executables in those directories, for example. > > Can you point to a Launchpad bug report which this kind of "don't test > i386 on a 64bit capable CPU, you MUST test on an i386-only capable CPU" > testing approach would have found, which testing an i386 image on a > 64-bit capable CPU (real or virtual) would have missed? I need a real > example to better understand what you are expecting to gain. > > We don't force i386 image testers to test on 32bit-only CPU hardware, do > we? So why would we need to require testers using VMs to use > 32-bit-only VMs? We should be consistent about this, if indeed it is an > issue, as you seem to be suggesting it is. > > Jonathan > > On 2013-07-25 06:00, Nio Wiklund wrote: > Hi Phill, > > I ran the Lubuntu Saucy alpha 2 32-bit alternate iso in a VirtualBox > within a 32-bit Ubuntu Precise system. But I can try to run it in a real > computer now. > > Best regards > Nio > > On 2013-07-25 03:07, Phill Whiteside wrote: >> Hi Jonathan, >> >> I think that everyone missed what I mentioned. That is the >> virtualisation of a 32 bit processor from a VM running on a 64 bit host. >> In kvm, i can choose from various pentium models, basic kvm32 etc. etc. >> And whilst VM's can never take the place of actual hardware, when we >> need some i386 iso's testing to get them released, getting a VM to as >> near as to a 32 bit system to try them on is far better than just >> 'ticking' the box and saying it works. >> >> Regards, >> >> Phill. >> >> On 24 July 2013 23:22, Jonathan Marsden <jmars...@fastmail.fm >> <mailto:jmars...@fastmail.fm>> wrote: >> >> Phill and Nio, >> >> >> You can run 32-bit code in a 64-bit environment (also in Virtualbox). >> >> Correct. >> >> >> But I think there is a switch for it somewhere in the settings. >> >> If there is, I have not needed to use it. I run a mix of 32bit x86 and >> 64bit amd64 VMs all the time. A couple of them run 24x7. >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013, at 02:45 PM, Phill Whiteside wrote: >> >> > I couldn't find the emulation under VBox, it may be in the 'extras' >> > package that I do not have installed. >> >> No, that's definitely not needed for running 32bit x86 code in >> VirtualBox. You don't need to do anything special to install and run a >> 32bit x86 OS under 64bit amd64 VirtualBox. It just works. >> >> Jonathan >> -- >> Jonathan Marsden >> jmars...@fastmail.fm <mailto:jmars...@fastmail.fm> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/phillw > -- Lubuntu-users mailing list Lubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users
