On Monday, 20 February 2023 01:07:29 CET Samuel Thibault wrote: > Diederik de Haas, le lun. 20 févr. 2023 00:38:28 +0100, a ecrit: > > On Monday, 20 February 2023 00:27:57 CET Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Diederik de Haas, le lun. 20 févr. 2023 00:14:19 +0100, a ecrit: > > > > On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 18:10:11 CET Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > Some people on debian-accessibility wanted to install debian in > > > > > arm64 under the utm wrapped qemu on Macos. The current installation > > > > > images however do not include sound drivers and speakup. > > > > > > > > Currently working on a MR to achieve that, but ... > > > > > > > > > ... indeed, it seems these modules are getting built only for > > > > > amd64, 686, mips, sh4. > > > > > > > > ... this architecture list seems rather random? Why not also add it to > > > > f.e. armhf, which itself is also a rather random > > > > not-previously-enabled-arch? > > > > > > I don't see why we shouldn't indeed. If some drivers didn't make sense > > > on these archs they would rather be disabled by the arch configuration > > > anyway. Speakup itself is portable and should be working on any arch, > > > provided it has a virtual console. > > > > > > The only historical reason I can see is that it was enabled only for > > > architectures which have a gtk installer image (for which we consider > > > that size doesn't matter). > > > > On https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ I checked the links > > under "other images (netboot, USB stick, etc.)" for the presence of a > > "netboot/gtk/" folder and that turned out to be arm64 and armhf, so I'll > > only add those. > > > > If other arches should be added too, that can be done later. > > I'm just thinking that probably people won't actually do it. That's what > happened for arm64: see commit ea37896526075fb9d0f453ec537536149ea97d16 > which copied over the gtk configuration, but left speakup/sound > commented, most probably just because the package was not available, and > only now, 4 years later, we notice the missing feature. As mentioned in my other reply, I submitted a MR for the kernel side here: https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/661 But it looks like something needs to be done on the d-i side as well. But I'm not willing to do that. I'm not familiar with d-i's code/inner working and when comparing arm64.cfg with armhf.cfg in netboot/gtk folder I saw differences and I don't know why that is. Diederik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.