Re: Re: x86_64 Tao: yum fall back on i386 RPMs?

Hi,


On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:24:20AM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Pasi Pirhonen wrote:
> 
> >
> > No. I don't see single reason to include lilo (or even use it).
> > 
> 
> Well, the only reason to use lilo instead of grub is that lilo allows to 
> define different fallback kernels in case you get a kernel panic. You can 
> do this by adding 'fallback=<label>' to each section.
> 
> We have had problems with some Enterprise kernels, and the fallback saved 
> us several times a 400km trip (or at least an amount of money to get 
> someone to look at our system and choose another kernel).
> 

That would be reason indeed. I didn't evem know (haven't much touched
lilo lately) that.

How would that actually happen? one need someone to push the
power/reset button anyway, doesn't it? 

lilo being just a 'linux loader' and not having any control over
hardware (hb or such to reset machine if it hangs)?

If for some reason the machine would get automagically reseted, how
would lilo know that it should boot the 'fallback'? That might happen
several days after boot, so i see that very very narroved case anyway.

That still doesn't justify to add more of this ia32 crap to 64bit
arches.


-- 
Pasi Pirhonen - [email protected] - http://iki.fi/upi/