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

Re: Next d-i alpha release: late June

Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> (2016-06-29):
> I have in the meantime run further tests with u-boot
> 2016.03+dfsg1-6 (including going through a full installation
> process with a locally-built d-i) on an Olimex A20-Lime1 and on
> an Olimex A20-SOM-EVB - none of them shows any freezes,
> so I think we are clear to proceed with the release.

Great, thanks.

> If the release is built in a sid environment, from a purely technical
> point of view it should be enough if u-boot 2016.03+dfsg1-6 is in sid.
> The various platform-specific u-boot binary packages (e.g.
> u-boot-omap, u-boot-sunxi) are a build-dependeny of d-i as the d-i
> buildscripts use files under /usr/lib/u-boot to create the various
> target-specifc images.


> The only u-boot binary package that is used at d-i runtime (and called
> by flash-kernel during kernel updates) is u-boot-tools, which hasn't
> changed it contents between 2016.03+dfsg1-5 (in testing) and
> 2016.03+dfsg1-6 (in unstable).

OK, the u-boot-tools being used during installation part I had
understood from some git grep, the contents (non-)change I didn't know
about, thanks.

> Nonetheless I would find it a cleaner solution to urgent
> 2016.03+dfsg1-6 into testing. If somebody should try to re-install
> u-boot from the package in testing on one of the affected systems, he
> ends up with an unbootable system. This can of course be fixed by
> putting the SD card into another computer and installing the u-boot
> from unstable there, but IMHO we shouldn't ship known-broken
> bootloader files in testing if we can avoid it.

OK, I've just urgented the package, so it should migrate tomorrow
morning. (Saw your mail a few minutes late for the 2200Z run.)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: