[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#724891: [debian-installer] debian-installer: Build firmware for the DNS-320/DNS-325



On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-22 at 20:15 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 23:33 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> >> Le 16 juin 2014 20:48, "Ian Campbell" <ijc@hellion.org.uk> a écrit :
>> >> > I understand what the mkdns323fw stuff is all about, but I'm wondering
>> >> > what the ext2 image is for, how does it fit in?
>> >>
>> >> An ext2 image need to solder a rs 232 console. It is a useful but need
>> >> hardware modification. Mkdns323fw does not need hardware modification.
>> >
>> > But does the mkdns323fw not work equally well whether or not you've made
>> > any hardware modifications? We'd really like to keep the number of
>> > images to a minimum unless absolutely necessary. It's simpler for users
>> > and maintainers alike if there is only one image per platform to think
>> > about/maintain/document/etc.
>>
>> Yes they work equally well. But flashing form dlink firmware is a one
>> way operation. I could not reflash from and thus reinstall from
>> scratch debian if needed.
>
> Even if you have soldered an rs232 console?

Dlink firmware does not work from rs232 console
>
> Perhaps I just don't understand what the ext2 image you are referring to
> is. I had imaged it was some sort of thing containing the debian
> installer as a mechanism for injecting it into the system (a kind of
> backdoor into the factory firmware if you will).

no in this case I need uimage and uramdisk in a usb key formated as ext2.
uimage and uramdisk are in old uboot format.
>
> Do you actually mean a ready made debootstrapped Debian filesystem
> image? I don't think Debian typically provides the latter, just the
> tools to produce them.

No I mean to create a ext2 image with uimage and uramdisk.
>
> Ian.
>


Reply to: