oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com <oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com> (2025-01-12):
Hello,
installing Trixie Alpha 1 on Tyan TN71-BP012 (POWER8) (/images/trixie_di_alpha1/ppc64el 2024/12/31)
Installation goes well but installed system isn't bootable with Petitboot. Installation was made choosing automated partitioning for an entrier disk with LVM and luks.
Doing that unencrypted /boot partition is ext4 and Petitboot can't see it. When partitioning if I edit /boot partition and set it to ext2 then after finishing installation,
PetitBoot see it and I'm able to boot in the installed system.
Sorry to hear about that. Looping in debian-boot@ who's responsible for
the installer components that implement those choices.
Hello,
installing Trixie Alpha 1 on Tyan TN71-BP012 (POWER8) (/images/trixie_di_alpha1/ppc64el 2024/12/31)
Installation goes well but installed system isn't bootable with Petitboot. Installation was made choosing automated partitioning for an entrier disk with LVM and luks.
Doing that unencrypted /boot partition is ext4 and Petitboot can't see it. When partitioning if I edit /boot partition and set it to ext2 then after finishing installation,
PetitBoot see it and I'm able to boot in the installed system.
Hello,
On 12/01/2025 at 11:53, Holger Wansing wrote:
Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 11:21:08 +0100):
oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com <oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com> (2025-01-12):
Hello,
installing Trixie Alpha 1 on Tyan TN71-BP012 (POWER8)
(/images/trixie_di_alpha1/ppc64el 2024/12/31)
Installation goes well but installed system isn't bootable with Petitboot.
Installation was made choosing automated partitioning for an entrier disk with LVM and luks.
Doing that unencrypted /boot partition is ext4 and Petitboot can't see it.
When partitioning if I edit /boot partition and set it to ext2 then after finishing installation,
PetitBoot see it and I'm able to boot in the installed system.
Sorry to hear about that. Looping in debian-boot@ who's responsible for
the installer components that implement those choices.
The move from ext2 to ext4 for /boot was in response to bug #985463 <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=985463> after it was considered that bootloaders such as GRUB and U-Boot currently used with Debian supported ext4.
Inndeed it is unfortunate that a modern boot loader like Petitboot does
not support ext4. It is even unexpected from a boot loader based on a
Linux kernel, as mentioned in <https://open-power.github.io/petitboot/overview.html>.
thanks for pointing me on this.
I have just pushed a fix for this, reverting back to ext2: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-auto/-/commit/a87cccbe0198b4dea2cc46a39d5f5b99501aa095
Partitioning recipes for ppc64el create a separate /boot partition only
when using LVM (and this was never changed). When using plain
partitions, /boot is on the ext4 root partition so the above fix will
have no effect.
According to
<https://github.com/open-power/petitboot/blob/master/README.md> and <https://open-power.github.io/petitboot/platforms.html>, Petitboot is
also available for arm64 platforms. Partitioning recipes for arm64 also
use ext4 for /boot, so it would not work either.
Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 11:21:08 +0100):
oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com <oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com> (2025-01-12): >>> Hello,
installing Trixie Alpha 1 on Tyan TN71-BP012 (POWER8)
(/images/trixie_di_alpha1/ppc64el 2024/12/31)
Installation goes well but installed system isn't bootable with Petitboot. >>> Installation was made choosing automated partitioning for an entrier disk with LVM and luks.
Doing that unencrypted /boot partition is ext4 and Petitboot can't see it. >>> When partitioning if I edit /boot partition and set it to ext2 then after finishing installation,
PetitBoot see it and I'm able to boot in the installed system.
Sorry to hear about that. Looping in debian-boot@ who's responsible for
the installer components that implement those choices.
thanks for pointing me on this.
I have just pushed a fix for this, reverting back to ext2: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-auto/-/commit/a87cccbe0198b4dea2cc46a39d5f5b99501aa095
Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 14:13:40 +0100):
On 12/01/2025 at 11:53, Holger Wansing wrote:
Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 11:21:08 +0100): >>>> oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com <oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com> (2025-01-12):
Hello,
installing Trixie Alpha 1 on Tyan TN71-BP012 (POWER8)
(/images/trixie_di_alpha1/ppc64el 2024/12/31)
Installation goes well but installed system isn't bootable with Petitboot.
Installation was made choosing automated partitioning for an entrier disk with LVM and luks.
Doing that unencrypted /boot partition is ext4 and Petitboot can't see it.
When partitioning if I edit /boot partition and set it to ext2 then after finishing installation,
PetitBoot see it and I'm able to boot in the installed system.
Sorry to hear about that. Looping in debian-boot@ who's responsible for >>>> the installer components that implement those choices.
The move from ext2 to ext4 for /boot was in response to bug #985463
<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=985463> after it was
considered that bootloaders such as GRUB and U-Boot currently used with
Debian supported ext4.
Inndeed it is unfortunate that a modern boot loader like Petitboot does
not support ext4. It is even unexpected from a boot loader based on a
Linux kernel, as mentioned in
<https://open-power.github.io/petitboot/overview.html>.
thanks for pointing me on this.
I have just pushed a fix for this, reverting back to ext2:
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-auto/-/commit/a87cccbe0198b4dea2cc46a39d5f5b99501aa095
Partitioning recipes for ppc64el create a separate /boot partition only
when using LVM (and this was never changed). When using plain
partitions, /boot is on the ext4 root partition so the above fix will
have no effect.
The report was for guided partitioning with encrypted LVM.
So I assumed the above would fit.
Am I missing something?
According to
<https://github.com/open-power/petitboot/blob/master/README.md> and
<https://open-power.github.io/petitboot/platforms.html>, Petitboot is
also available for arm64 platforms. Partitioning recipes for arm64 also
use ext4 for /boot, so it would not work either.
Hmm, is it widely used on arm64, or only a cornercase?
Is it worth to change the default on arm64 just for petitboot?
On 12/01/2025 at 14:51, Holger Wansing wrote:
Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 14:13:40 +0100):
On 12/01/2025 at 11:53, Holger Wansing wrote:
Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 11:21:08 +0100):
oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com <oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com> (2025-01-12):
Hello,
installing Trixie Alpha 1 on Tyan TN71-BP012 (POWER8)
(/images/trixie_di_alpha1/ppc64el 2024/12/31)
Installation goes well but installed system isn't bootable with Petitboot.
Installation was made choosing automated partitioning for an entrier disk with LVM and luks.
Doing that unencrypted /boot partition is ext4 and Petitboot can't see it.
When partitioning if I edit /boot partition and set it to ext2 then after finishing installation,
PetitBoot see it and I'm able to boot in the installed system.
Sorry to hear about that. Looping in debian-boot@ who's responsible for >>>> the installer components that implement those choices.
The move from ext2 to ext4 for /boot was in response to bug #985463
<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=985463> after it was
considered that bootloaders such as GRUB and U-Boot currently used with
Debian supported ext4.
Inndeed it is unfortunate that a modern boot loader like Petitboot does
not support ext4. It is even unexpected from a boot loader based on a
Linux kernel, as mentioned in
<https://open-power.github.io/petitboot/overview.html>.
thanks for pointing me on this.
I have just pushed a fix for this, reverting back to ext2:
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-auto/-/commit/a87cccbe0198b4dea2cc46a39d5f5b99501aa095
Partitioning recipes for ppc64el create a separate /boot partition only
when using LVM (and this was never changed). When using plain
partitions, /boot is on the ext4 root partition so the above fix will
have no effect.
The report was for guided partitioning with encrypted LVM.
So I assumed the above would fit.
Am I missing something?
No, I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the revert fixes
only this specific use case (guided partitioning using LVM with or
without encryption). The issue already existed and remains when using
guided partitioniong without LVM (ext4 root, no separate /boot).
According to
<https://github.com/open-power/petitboot/blob/master/README.md> and
<https://open-power.github.io/petitboot/platforms.html>, Petitboot is
also available for arm64 platforms. Partitioning recipes for arm64 also
use ext4 for /boot, so it would not work either.
Hmm, is it widely used on arm64, or only a cornercase?
Is it worth to change the default on arm64 just for petitboot?
One could ask the same about ppc64el. Is Petitboot provided by IBM as
part of this platform firmware ? The recipes for ppc64el create a PReP partition which, as far as I know, is intended for OpenFirmware + GRUB.
I have no clue about Petitboot on arm64, I didn't know anything about Petitboot before today. A quick web search shows that Petitboot is used
on arm64-based Odroid boards. An article [1] (in french, sorry) suggests
that it supports ext4, so I wonder why it does not on the OP's machine.
Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 16:13:21 +0100):
I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the revert fixes
only this specific use case (guided partitioning using LVM with or
without encryption). The issue already existed and remains when using
guided partitioniong without LVM (ext4 root, no separate /boot).
Ok, so that's fine.
With this fix in place, there is at least the LVM partitioning scheme
(with or without encryption), which works out of the box with default
choice.
And assuming we got no complains before about this situation on this machine, I guess it's fine this way.
On 12/01/2025 at 16:29, Holger Wansing wrote:
Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 16:13:21 +0100):
I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the revert fixes
only this specific use case (guided partitioning using LVM with or
without encryption). The issue already existed and remains when using
guided partitioniong without LVM (ext4 root, no separate /boot).
Ok, so that's fine.
With this fix in place, there is at least the LVM partitioning scheme
(with or without encryption), which works out of the box with default
choice.
And assuming we got no complains before about this situation on this machine,
I guess it's fine this way.
There is too much inconsistency here for me to say it is fine.
On one hand, the recipes for ppc64el create an optional ext2 /boot partition only with LVM, which means that booting with Petitboot will fail if the user chooses guided partitioning without LVM.support /boot on ext4 and then the recipes should create an optional ext4 /boot partition only with LVM (like recipes for amd64).
On the other hand, the recipes for arm64 uselessly create a mandatory ext4 /boot partition even without LVM.
In between, the recipes for amd64 create an optional ext4 /boot partition only with LVM and the default recipes create a mandatory ext2 /boot partition in all cases.
Either a common boot loader for a given architecture does not support /boot on ext4 and then the recipes for this architecture should create a mandatory ext2 /boot partition in all cases (like default recipes), or all common boot loaders are known to
On 12/01/2025 at 16:29, Holger Wansing wrote:
Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 16:13:21 +0100):
I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the revert fixes
only this specific use case (guided partitioning using LVM with or without encryption). The issue already existed and remains when using guided partitioniong without LVM (ext4 root, no separate /boot).
Ok, so that's fine.
There is too much inconsistency here for me to say it is fine.
On one hand, the recipes for ppc64el create an optional ext2 /boot partition only with LVM, which means that booting with Petitboot will fail if the user chooses guided partitioning without LVM.
On the other hand, the recipes for arm64 uselessly create a mandatory ext4 /boot partition even without LVM.
In between, the recipes for amd64 create an optional ext4 /boot partition only with LVM and the default recipes create a mandatory ext2 /boot
partition in all cases.
Either a common boot loader for a given architecture does not support /boot on ext4 and then the recipes for this architecture should create a mandatory ext2 /boot partition in all cases (like default recipes), or all common boot loaders are known to support /boot on ext4 and then the recipes should
create an optional ext4 /boot partition only with LVM (like recipes for amd64).
Am 12. Januar 2025 19:17:19 MEZ schrieb Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org>:
On 12/01/2025 at 16:29, Holger Wansing wrote:
Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 16:13:21 +0100):
I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the revert fixes
only this specific use case (guided partitioning using LVM with or
without encryption). The issue already existed and remains when using
guided partitioniong without LVM (ext4 root, no separate /boot).
Ok, so that's fine.
With this fix in place, there is at least the LVM partitioning scheme
(with or without encryption), which works out of the box with default
choice.
And assuming we got no complains before about this situation on this machine,
I guess it's fine this way.
There is too much inconsistency here for me to say it is fine.
"Is fine" was rather meant as "ok, I understand what you meant".
support /boot on ext4 and then the recipes should create an optional ext4 /boot partition only with LVM (like recipes for amd64).On one hand, the recipes for ppc64el create an optional ext2 /boot partition only with LVM, which means that booting with Petitboot will fail if the user chooses guided partitioning without LVM.
On the other hand, the recipes for arm64 uselessly create a mandatory ext4 /boot partition even without LVM.
In between, the recipes for amd64 create an optional ext4 /boot partition only with LVM and the default recipes create a mandatory ext2 /boot partition in all cases.
Either a common boot loader for a given architecture does not support /boot on ext4 and then the recipes for this architecture should create a mandatory ext2 /boot partition in all cases (like default recipes), or all common boot loaders are known to
What you describe would be the perfect world.
But what we have here leads to a trade-off anyway.
We cannot do it perfectly right for all cases.
In a perfect world, all boot loaders would support /boot on ext4 and we would not have to make trade-offs. Indeed we must make a trade-off between robustness (ext4 vs ext2), convenience (/boot in root filesystem vs small separate /boot) andcompatibility with boot loaders. And I believe we can do it right at least for use cases we know about. You addressed the case of guided partitioning without LVM on ppc64el, why not do the same for guided partitioning without LVM ? Do you think that the
On 12/01/2025 at 11:53, Holger Wansing wrote:
Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote (Sun, 12 Jan 2025 11:21:08 +0100):
oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com <oliviosu_ppc64el@tutanota.com> (2025-01-12):
Hello,
installing Trixie Alpha 1 on Tyan TN71-BP012 (POWER8) (/images/trixie_di_alpha1/ppc64el 2024/12/31)
Installation goes well but installed system isn't bootable with Petitboot.
Installation was made choosing automated partitioning for an entrier disk with LVM and luks.
Doing that unencrypted /boot partition is ext4 and Petitboot can't see it.
When partitioning if I edit /boot partition and set it to ext2 then after finishing installation,
PetitBoot see it and I'm able to boot in the installed system.
Sorry to hear about that. Looping in debian-boot@ who's responsible for the installer components that implement those choices.
The move from ext2 to ext4 for /boot was in response to bug #985463 <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=985463> after it was considered that bootloaders such as GRUB and U-Boot currently used with Debian supported ext4.
Inndeed it is unfortunate that a modern boot loader like Petitboot does
not support ext4. It is even unexpected from a boot loader based on a
Linux kernel, as mentioned in <https://open-power.github.io/petitboot/overview.html>.
Am 12. Januar 2025 23:44:27 MEZ schrieb Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org>:
Indeed we must make a trade-off
between robustness (ext4 vs ext2), convenience (/boot in root filesystem
vs small separate /boot) and compatibility with boot loaders. And I
believe we can do it right at least for use cases we know about. You
addressed the case of guided partitioning without LVM on ppc64el, why
not do the same for guided partitioning without LVM ? Do you think that
the robustness or convenience gain of not having a separate ext2 /boot
partition is worth the loss of compatibility with Petitboot ?
I cannot judge on this, because it depends on, how much Petitboot
is used on that arch.
If it's only some few percent, you would force much other people to
a ext2 /boot without a reason.
And the same for arm64, if we roll back to ext2 there too.
I had hoped that the OP would give some statistics about this...
<div dir="auto">For IBM made POWER8, possible better support and being able to boot on /ext4 but don't have one to test.<br></div><div dir="auto">Sorry for the burden for an old POWER8 by Tyan.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Havea nice day,<br></div><div dir="auto">Olivier<br></div> </body>
On 13/01/2025 at 07:48, Holger Wansing wrote:
Am 12. Januar 2025 23:44:27 MEZ schrieb Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org>:
Indeed we must make a trade-off
between robustness (ext4 vs ext2), convenience (/boot in root filesystem >> vs small separate /boot) and compatibility with boot loaders. And I
believe we can do it right at least for use cases we know about. You
addressed the case of guided partitioning without LVM on ppc64el, why
not do the same for guided partitioning without LVM ? Do you think that >> the robustness or convenience gain of not having a separate ext2 /boot
partition is worth the loss of compatibility with Petitboot ?
I cannot judge on this, because it depends on, how much Petitboot
is used on that arch.
If it's only some few percent, you would force much other people to
a ext2 /boot without a reason.
I agree. Petitboot is mentioned on IBM's website [1] so I suspect it is rather standard on IBM POWER machines.
[1] <https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/linux-on-systems?topic=systems-petitboot-bootloader>
And the same for arm64, if we roll back to ext2 there too.
AFAIK the only implementation of Petitboot on arm64 (Odroid) supports
ext4 so there is no need to rollback to ext2. I did not mean to roll
back to ext2 but to create a separate /boot partition only with LVM, as
I do not see the benefit of a separate ext4 /boot partition without LVM.
I had hoped that the OP would give some statistics about this...
So do I...
On Mon Jan 13, 2025 at 9:36 AM CET, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
AFAIK the only implementation of Petitboot on arm64 (Odroid) supports
ext4 so there is no need to rollback to ext2. I did not mean to roll
back to ext2 but to create a separate /boot partition only with LVM, as
I do not see the benefit of a separate ext4 /boot partition without LVM.
FWIW, I hadn't heard about Petitboot before this bug either, so I looked
on their Github repo and found "and ARM64 with ACPI" ... and I think the "with ACPI" is significant.
So going back to ext2 on arm64 just for Petitboot users seems a bit
heavy handed to me (but I may not fully understand it all).
On 13/01/2025 at 14:28, Diederik de Haas wrote:
On Mon Jan 13, 2025 at 9:36 AM CET, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
AFAIK the only implementation of Petitboot on arm64 (Odroid) supports
ext4 so there is no need to rollback to ext2. I did not mean to roll
back to ext2 but to create a separate /boot partition only with LVM, as
I do not see the benefit of a separate ext4 /boot partition without LVM.
FWIW, I hadn't heard about Petitboot before this bug either, so I looked
on their Github repo and found "and ARM64 with ACPI" ... and I think the "with ACPI" is significant.
So going back to ext2 on arm64 just for Petitboot users seems a bit
heavy handed to me (but I may not fully understand it all).
Do I need to repeat that I did no suggest to revert the /boot partition
to ext2 on arm64 ? I found other evidence that Petitboot supports ext4:
In a perfect world, all boot loaders would support /boot on ext4 and we
would not have to make trade-offs. Indeed we must make a trade-off
between robustness (ext4 vs ext2), convenience (/boot in root filesystem
vs small separate /boot) and compatibility with boot loaders. And I
believe we can do it right at least for use cases we know about. You addressed the case of guided partitioning without LVM on ppc64el, why
not do the same for guided partitioning without LVM ? Do you think that
the robustness or convenience gain of not having a separate ext2 /boot partition is worth the loss of compatibility with Petitboot ?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 486 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 148:29:44 |
| Calls: | 9,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,708 |
| Messages: | 6,168,027 |