Bean wrote:
Use -l option in patch to ignore space. If it still not work, you can
make the changes manually, it's quite simple:
/naive me thanks you for mentioning -l
Ok, I can basically make everything else work, even chainloading OS X,
but it just don't boot Linux. Kernel and initrd loads p
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Isaac Dupree
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bean wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Isaac Dupree
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> how do you apply this patch? With `patch -p1` I'm getting:
>>> 2 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>>> loader
Bean wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Isaac Dupree
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
how do you apply this patch? With `patch -p1` I'm getting:
2 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
loader/i386/efi/linux.c.rej
any more infos needed?
There maybe some code mixups, try this one:
no
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Isaac Dupree
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> how do you apply this patch? With `patch -p1` I'm getting:
> 2 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> loader/i386/efi/linux.c.rej
>
> any more infos needed?
There maybe some code mixups, try this one:
BTW, are y
how do you apply this patch? With `patch -p1` I'm getting:
2 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
loader/i386/efi/linux.c.rej
any more infos needed?
-Isaac
Bean wrote:
Hi,
I figure it out now, there is some problem with the initrd allocation
algorithm, the following patch should
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Isaac Dupree
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bean wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The problem with initrd is that it can't allocate enough memory.
>> Please try the following patch, it will show some info that could be
>> be useful in debugging.
>
> linux (hd0,4)/vmlinuz
>[
Bean wrote:
Hi,
The problem with initrd is that it can't allocate enough memory.
Please try the following patch, it will show some info that could be
be useful in debugging.
linux (hd0,4)/vmlinuz
[Linux-EFI, setup=0x2a00, size=0x1d2798]
initrd (hd0,4)/initrd.img
679000 1ffe 832
___
Hi,
The problem with initrd is that it can't allocate enough memory.
Please try the following patch, it will show some info that could be
be useful in debugging.
diff --git a/loader/i386/efi/linux.c b/loader/i386/efi/linux.c
index ee3fb99..327fcaf 100644
--- a/loader/i386/efi/linux.c
+++ b/loader
On Sun, 2008-06-01 at 12:23 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 01:13:42PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 11:41 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > > What would you all think about renaming to partmap/msdos.c ?
> >
> > I don't like long names, as you might
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 01:13:42PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 11:41 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > What would you all think about renaming to partmap/msdos.c ?
>
> I don't like long names, as you might have noticed, but I think both
> "pc" and "msdos" fail to convey the
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 02:57:21PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
You're confusing BIOS-based boot with msdos partition labels. You can use
GPT just fine when booting from BIOS (although Intel tries to hide that
fact by embedding the GPT spec inside the EFI spec).
I have the ha
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 03:52:35AM +0800, Bean wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 02:57:21PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> >> >
> >> >You're confusing BIOS-based boot with msdos partition labels. You can use
> >> >GPT just f
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 02:57:21PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
>> >
>> >You're confusing BIOS-based boot with msdos partition labels. You can use
>> >GPT just fine when booting from BIOS (although Intel tries to hide that
>>
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 02:57:21PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> >
> >You're confusing BIOS-based boot with msdos partition labels. You can use
> >GPT just fine when booting from BIOS (although Intel tries to hide that
> >fact by embedding the GPT spec inside the EFI spec).
>
> I have the hack whi
Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 05:01:51PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
You don't need to use the header of one of your partitions. You can use
the MBR or even have a dedicated partition for core.img. Then you can
install
the rest of GRUB in a filesystem that's not case unsensitiv
On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 11:41 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> What would you all think about renaming to partmap/msdos.c ?
I don't like long names, as you might have noticed, but I think both
"pc" and "msdos" fail to convey the purpose of the module. If we are
going to rename things, I would conside
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:35:01AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> You're confusing BIOS-based boot with msdos partition labels. You can use
> GPT just fine when booting from BIOS (although Intel tries to hide that
> fact by embedding the GPT spec inside the EFI spec).
Btw, maybe this hints that
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 05:01:51PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> >
> >You don't need to use the header of one of your partitions. You can use
> >the MBR or even have a dedicated partition for core.img. Then you can
> >install
> >the rest of GRUB in a filesystem that's not case unsensitive! ;-P
>
Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:29:59PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
It's fixed now for my hardware, Intel's new video driver in Xorg 7.3
doesn't need any BIOS hacks or anything, I believe. Anyway, I'll find
out if it works just as soon as I manage to actually get into
linux-ker
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:29:59PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> It's fixed now for my hardware, Intel's new video driver in Xorg 7.3
> doesn't need any BIOS hacks or anything, I believe. Anyway, I'll find
> out if it works just as soon as I manage to actually get into
> linux-kernel under EFI,
Bean wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Isaac Dupree
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:42:02AM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
okay, I just tried a few days ago's grub2 CVS without patches for i386
efi, because presumably if that doesn't work for me th
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Isaac Dupree
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:42:02AM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
>>>
>>> okay, I just tried a few days ago's grub2 CVS without patches for i386
>>> efi, because presumably if that doesn't work for me
Robert Millan wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:42:02AM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
okay, I just tried a few days ago's grub2 CVS without patches for i386
efi, because presumably if that doesn't work for me then nothing else
will either (though it's possible that a working x86-64 would work
bet
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:42:02AM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> okay, I just tried a few days ago's grub2 CVS without patches for i386
> efi, because presumably if that doesn't work for me then nothing else
> will either (though it's possible that a working x86-64 would work
> better for this pa
okay, I just tried a few days ago's grub2 CVS without patches for i386
efi, because presumably if that doesn't work for me then nothing else
will either (though it's possible that a working x86-64 would work
better for this particular EFI firmware, I suppose)
I forget how I installed grub2-bio
25 matches
Mail list logo
