Hi,
On 03-03-2024 9:01 p.m., Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Maybe have it marked Not-For-Us on armel, also requesting the binary to
be dropped there? And maybe poke the ftp team to have installer-armel/
cleaned up?
Those actions sound appropriate to me, but I don't know the inner
details well enough
Bastian Blank (2024-03-04):
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 09:01:06PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Maybe have it marked Not-For-Us on armel, also requesting the binary to
> > be dropped there? And maybe poke the ftp team to have installer-armel/
> > cleaned up? (The “disabling daily builds” part
[ Remove -arm and -release }
Hi
On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 09:01:06PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Maybe have it marked Not-For-Us on armel, also requesting the binary to
> be dropped there? And maybe poke the ftp team to have installer-armel/
> cleaned up? (The “disabling daily builds” part
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:52:14AM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> Gianluca Renzi wrote:
> > The same here. We never used the d-i but we are using Debian systems
> > (kernel and root file system) as daily bases of our line of products
> > embedded systems. Hundred of thousands of boards are
Gianluca Renzi wrote:
> The same here. We never used the d-i but we are using Debian systems (kernel
> and root file system) as daily bases of our line of products embedded
> systems. Hundred of thousands of boards are using Debian since Debian Lenny
> 5.0. From armel to armhf 32 bit systems.
>
The same here. We never used the d-i but we are using Debian systems
(kernel and root file system) as daily bases of our line of products
embedded systems. Hundred of thousands of boards are using Debian since
Debian Lenny 5.0. From armel to armhf 32 bit systems.
So a drop of the armel and/or
On 2024-01-09 22:19, Martin wrote:
> On 2024-01-09 19:56, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
>> though. Any armel users out there? :-)
>
> My employer uses Debian on armel, but not d-i :-)
I should add: We never used d-i on armel and have our own kernel.
Most other stuff is plain Debian, though.
just another armel-debian user here, running in an old intel es4000 since
2006.
On Sun, 3 Mar 2024, 20:31 Christoph Biedl,
wrote:
> Emanuele Rocca wrote...
>
> > Any armel users out there? :-)
>
> Fairly late, but just to avoid the impression there aren't any left:
> Yes, here.
>
> But that's
Bastian Blank (2024-01-07):
> With Linux 6.6 we dropped the Marvell specific kernel image, as it
> was not known to work on any of the available devices. We still have
> another armel kernel left, the one of the Raspberry Pi 0 and 1, which
> uses an ARMv6 CPU.
>
> This also removed all the
Emanuele Rocca wrote...
> Any armel users out there? :-)
Fairly late, but just to avoid the impression there aren't any left:
Yes, here.
But that's not an objection against plans in Debian kernel and/or d-i,
I'm using my own kernel, and should I ever have the need of a new
installation, I know
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 05:33:23PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Right, though changing the kernel package to support this
> sounds easier than changing the installer to use a
> foreign architecture kernel package.
Well. It is a "dpkg --add-architecture" in the right spot of
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024, at 23:54, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 08:34 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> Qemu versatilepb is probably the most accessible arm926
>> platform, though there are a couple of other armv5/v6 (ast2400,
>> ast2500, pxa27x, raspi1ap) in qemu that one should be
On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 08:34 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024, at 23:07, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > With Linux 6.6 we dropped the Marvell specific kernel image, as it
> > was not known to work on any of the available devices. We still have
> > another armel kernel left,
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 09:46, Martin wrote:
>
> Quoting Bastian Blank :
> > But why? What is provided by an armel userland that armhf can't?
>
> My employer runs Debian on this armv5(?) hardware:
>
> https://www.taskit.de/produkte/embedded-produkte/computer-on-module/132/stamp9g20-512f/128r
>
>
Quoting Bastian Blank :
But why? What is provided by an armel userland that armhf can't?
My employer runs Debian on this armv5(?) hardware:
https://www.taskit.de/produkte/embedded-produkte/computer-on-module/132/stamp9g20-512f/128r
Sure, the kernel is not the Debian one, but something
[dropped some recipients, this mail is not about d-i and the problem at
hand]
Hi
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 08:34:27AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The most important ARMv5 platform is now probably at91, as
> Microchip still releases new sam9 chips[1] and is going to
> keep supporting it for a
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024, at 23:07, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Hi
>
> With Linux 6.6 we dropped the Marvell specific kernel image, as it
> was not known to work on any of the available devices. We still have
> another armel kernel left, the one of the Raspberry Pi 0 and 1, which
> uses an ARMv6 CPU.
>
>
On 2024-01-09 19:56, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> though. Any armel users out there? :-)
My employer uses Debian on armel, but not d-i :-)
Hi Bastian,
On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 11:07:48PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Do we have any armel subarch that can be installed via d-i?
Not as far as I know, perhaps Sledge has more info on this? Also, I don't think
we've seen anyone mentioning armel in ages on debian-boot, both in terms of
Hi
With Linux 6.6 we dropped the Marvell specific kernel image, as it
was not known to work on any of the available devices. We still have
another armel kernel left, the one of the Raspberry Pi 0 and 1, which
uses an ARMv6 CPU.
This also removed all the udebs from armel, which makes many d-i
20 matches
Mail list logo
