Re: Proposed changes to installer for armhf
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:58:18PM -0400, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Ian Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2014-04-19 19:50]:
> > I'm a bit worried that this might imply a greater level of support for
> > any board with a DTB than we actually offer. Not really sure how to deal
> > with that, probably more of a docs issue than anything.
> I have two concerns:
> 1) Like you, I'm not sure whether making all DTBs available is a good
> idea when we don't support all devices. How about only copying the
> DTBs for devices that we know are supported by d-i and Debian?
this is of course a two-sided problem: providing all DTBs might
include systems on which d-i does really not work due to lack of
(enabled) drivers in the armmp kernel, but on the other hand
providing only the "known-supported" DTBs limits the use of d-i to
currently only two devices for armhf (IMX53QSB and vExpress) while it
surely works on a lot more systems for which we just lack the
specific confirmation. Doing so would probably limit the userbase
a lot more than necessary.
The only issue in d-i/flash-kernel for "unknown" systems appears to
be the "making the system bootable" step; otherwise d-i does not seem
to need device-specific information to do it's work. I have
described this limitation in the installation-guide
(http://d-i.debian.org/manual/en.armhf/ch02s01.html, section 18.104.22.168.
"Platforms supported by Debian/armhf") and think the advantages of
providing all DTBs overall outweigh the disadvantages, as long as the
limitations are documented.
Gem. Par. 28 Abs. 4 Bundesdatenschutzgesetz widerspreche ich der Nutzung
sowie der Weitergabe meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der
Werbung sowie der Markt- oder Meinungsforschung.