On Saturday, 12 February 2022 16:14:19 CET Philippe Clérié wrote:
> My apologies for the confusion. *Pi OS* here was meant as a shortcut for
> the *official* distribution of Debian for the Raspberry Pi. Which I am
> using by the way.
Which is still confusing, because I'm not aware of an 'official distribution of
Debian for the RPi'.
I am aware of https://raspi.debian.net/ but that says explicitly:
"This site is not an official Debian project. While the maintainer (Gunnar Wolf)
is a Debian Developer, content herein provided should be considered unofficial."
It uses/depends on raspi-firmware which is non-free software and therefor can
not be part of Debian ('officially').
The provided images do consist purely of packages provided via the Debian
archives, so I'm assuming you meant that.
Do note that 'armel' is only used for the RPi Zero and RPi 1, because as
mentioned earlier, those hardware devices do not conform to Debian's armhf
requirements.
The RPi 2 does and therefor the images use packages from the armhf ARCH.
The RPi 3 and 4 are 64-bit capable and therefor run arm64.
The linux-image-rpi package for bullseye-backports, bookworm and sid now
explicitly mention it's only for RPi Zero, Zero W and 1, which hopefully
reduces potential confusion.
HTH,
DiederikAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.