Re: debian-installer failure with arm64 (was RE: laxton (softiron) boot failure with Debian linux-image-4.7.0-0.bpo.1-arm64)
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:29:07PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lennart Sorensen writes ("Re: debian-installer failure with arm64 (was RE: laxton (softiron) boot failure with Debian linux-image-4.7.0-0.bpo.1-arm64)"):
> > Stretch in the archive currently has a kernel version of 4.8.11, so an
> > installer booted with 4.7.8 is going to have a hard time finding working
> > kernel modules.
> ...
> > Maybe these would work better:
> > https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/arm64/daily/netboot/debian-installer/arm64/
>
> Yes, they do, much better, thank you. There are still some alarming
> messages on the console which I will take up with the
> hardware/firmware folks, but d-i ran to completion and generated a
> system which boots.
>
> Is it the case, then, that the images here
>
> > > http://ftp.debian.org/debian//dists/stretch/main/installer-arm64/current/images/netboot//debian-installer/arm64/linux
>
> are simply useless now ? They seemed like the obvious starting point
> to me. (The corresponding amd64 installer is what I used to install
> stretch on an x86 machine fairly recently.)
Yes due to stretch changing from 4.7 to 4.8 kernel since those images
were made, the netboot images for the most recent d-i alpha build are
in fact useless now. Maybe someone should update the errata page for
the alpha8 to mention that.
Well at least the up to date stuff works, which is at least a good sign
for the stretch release.
> Anyway, what I really want is a suitable combination of parts in
> backports. Should I expect this all to work if I use a backports
> kernel ?
Well you would have the problem of how to convince the netboot installer
to grab kernel modules from backports rather than jessie. I imagine
there is a way to do that. But if the available modules that it downloads
match the kernel booted, then it ought to fine. Not sure what the state
of arm64 support is in jessie.
> If so then I will try it again more systematically and report what
> goes wrong - but IIRC[1] it's probably the same thing: not finding the
> kernel modules.
Most likely.
--
Len Sorensen
Reply to: