Re: armel after Stretch
On 12/09/2016 01:53 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 23:12 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
>> Roger Shimizu wrote...
>>
>>> I'm ARM porter on armel/marvell (orion5x/kirkwood).
>>> Stretch will be frozen and released soon, which makes me bit depressed,
>>> because it means armel will be dropped out of unstable/testing as the
>>> conclusion of Cape Town BoF.
>>
>> Same here. My Dockstars (orion5x/kirkwood) still work like a charm and
>> it gives a bad feeling having to trash them some day just because
>> there's no support any more.
>>
>> On the other hand, they face another problem I guess is typical for
>> that generation, just by the age: Memory.
> [...]
>
> Also, dedicated tiny flash partitions for the kernel and initrd. I
> wouldn't be surprised to be find that by the time we want to release
> buster we can't build a useful kernel that fits into the 2 MB partition
> that most of these devices seem to have.
I'd like to mention my package tiny-initramfs here, which can help
keep the size required for the initramfs down quite a bit (without
modules it's ~12-14 kiB (!) with gzip on armel, modules increase it
by their own size, but nothing else; separate /usr is explicitly
supported), and may be useful for at least some of that hardware:
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/tiny-initramfs
https://github.com/chris-se/tiny-initramfs/
That doesn't help if there's a limit on the kernel image alone and
that is exceeded, of course.
Regards,
Christian
Reply to: