On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 02:05 +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2014-04-28 12:26 GMT+02:00 Ian Campbell :
> > On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 19:06 +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 08:42:23AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> >> > Aside: "EfikaMX" is listed in 2.1.2.4 as no longer
Hello,
2014-04-28 12:26 GMT+02:00 Ian Campbell :
> On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 19:06 +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 08:42:23AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> > Aside: "EfikaMX" is listed in 2.1.2.4 as no longer supported, but we do
>> > supply a specific image for it using the a
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 19:06 +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 08:42:23AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> > Aside: "EfikaMX" is listed in 2.1.2.4 as no longer supported, but we do
> > supply a specific image for it using the armmp kernel:
> > http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/a
On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 19:05 -0400, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Karsten Merker [2014-04-24 22:02]:
> > I have described this limitation in the installation-guide
> > (http://d-i.debian.org/manual/en.armhf/ch02s01.html, section
> > 2.1.2.3. "Platforms supported by Debian/armhf") and think the
> > a
* Karsten Merker [2014-04-24 22:02]:
> I have described this limitation in the installation-guide
> (http://d-i.debian.org/manual/en.armhf/ch02s01.html, section
> 2.1.2.3. "Platforms supported by Debian/armhf") and think the
> advantages of providing all DTBs overall outweigh the disadvantages,
>
On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 13:58 -0400, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Ian Campbell [2014-04-19 19:50]:
I must have used the wrong email account earlier, switching to my home
address here...
> > I'm a bit worried that this might imply a greater level of support for
> > any board with a DTB than we actua
* Ian Campbell [2014-04-19 19:50]:
> I'm a bit worried that this might imply a greater level of support for
> any board with a DTB than we actually offer. Not really sure how to deal
> with that, probably more of a docs issue than anything.
I have two concerns:
1) Like you, I'm not sure whether
Ian Campbell (2014-04-20):
> The kernel is in svn still, which is what I meant there.
Yeah, sorry, I didn't read carefully enough.
> I plan to push:
> armhf: move armmp subarch to the toplevel.
> arm: include dtb files for netboot.
> to d-i master shortly (once this quick test in
On Sun, 2014-04-20 at 16:13 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ian Campbell (2014-04-19):
> > Now that armhf only has a single kernel flavour I think we can simplify
> > the installer setup a bit.
> >
> > Firstly by moving the armmp subarch to the top level and secondly by
> > dropping the
On 20 April 2014 15:03, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-04-20 at 12:32 +0200, K. Merker wrote:
>> gitorious seems to have problems at the moment (trying to access
>> the web interface gives "bad gateway", running git clone gives
>> timeouts).
>
> It does seem to be down right now :-/.
>
> Which
Ian Campbell (2014-04-20):
> On Sun, 2014-04-20 at 12:32 +0200, K. Merker wrote:
> > gitorious seems to have problems at the moment (trying to access
> > the web interface gives "bad gateway", running git clone gives
> > timeouts).
>
> It does seem to be down right now :-/.
>
> Which means I can
Hi,
Ian Campbell (2014-04-19):
> Now that armhf only has a single kernel flavour I think we can simplify
> the installer setup a bit.
>
> Firstly by moving the armmp subarch to the top level and secondly by
> dropping the version from the kernel filename. Leading to
> installer-armhf/201
On Sun, 2014-04-20 at 12:32 +0200, K. Merker wrote:
> gitorious seems to have problems at the moment (trying to access
> the web interface gives "bad gateway", running git clone gives
> timeouts).
It does seem to be down right now :-/.
Which means I can't push the bugfix I've just made, which is
On Sun, 2014-04-20 at 12:32 +0200, K. Merker wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 07:50:07PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> > Now that armhf only has a single kernel flavour I think we can simplify
> > the installer setup a bit.
> >
> > Firstly by moving the armmp subarch to the top level and secondl
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 07:50:07PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Now that armhf only has a single kernel flavour I think we can simplify
> the installer setup a bit.
>
> Firstly by moving the armmp subarch to the top level and secondly by
> dropping the version from the kernel filename. Leading to
Now that armhf only has a single kernel flavour I think we can simplify
the installer setup a bit.
Firstly by moving the armmp subarch to the top level and secondly by
dropping the version from the kernel filename. Leading to
installer-armhf/201403XX/images/netboot/initrd.gz
instal
16 matches
Mail list logo
