Alexander Kurtz [2016-10-30 22:05 +0100]:
> Thanks a lot for your quick reply! You might want to consider also
> adding "armhf" to that list, since both gnu-efi [0] and u-boot-rpi [1]
> are also available there (in contrast to "armel" where gnu-efi is
> missing).
I know that arm64 EFI boot works (
On 30 October 2016 at 22:05, Alexander Kurtz wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 22:45 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
>> But indeed gnu-efi does exist on arm64 in testing/unstable now, so I
>> added it
>
> Thanks a lot for your quick reply! You might want to consider also
> adding "armhf" to that list, sinc
On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 22:45 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> But indeed gnu-efi does exist on arm64 in testing/unstable now, so I
> added it
Thanks a lot for your quick reply! You might want to consider also
adding "armhf" to that list, since both gnu-efi [0] and u-boot-rpi [1]
are also available there
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello Alexander,
Alexander Kurtz [2016-10-30 21:32 +0100]:
> While the i386 and amd64 variants of the systemd package do ship the
> systemd-boot binary [0,1], it seems the arm64 variant does not [2] (at
> least there is nothing under /usr/lib/systemd/boot/). As Fedora mana
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #842617 [systemd] Please also ship systemd-boot on arm64
Added tag(s) pending.
--
842617: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=842617
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Package: systemd
Version: 231-10
Hi!
While the i386 and amd64 variants of the systemd package do ship the
systemd-boot binary [0,1], it seems the arm64 variant does not [2] (at
least there is nothing under /usr/lib/systemd/boot/). As Fedora manages
to ship the related files just fine [3], I guess