On Sun, 2018-11-18 at 15:56 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Alexander, I've re-read your reply in
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=842617#32
>
> If in the feature you actually plan to use the armhf bits on say the
> Raspberry Pi 2, I'm happy to recondider.
I'm sorry, but my only
Am 18.11.18 um 12:54 schrieb Martin Pitt:
> Hello Michael,
>
> Michael Biebl [2018-11-17 15:47 +0100]:
>>> I know that arm64 EFI boot works (Canonical uses it in their internal
>>> OpenStack deployment), but as far as I know there is no existing
>>> armhf EFI implementation; so this would mean to
Hello Michael,
Michael Biebl [2018-11-17 15:47 +0100]:
> > I know that arm64 EFI boot works (Canonical uses it in their internal
> > OpenStack deployment), but as far as I know there is no existing
> > armhf EFI implementation; so this would mean to ship dead bits. Or are
> > you aware of any plat
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:46:13 +0200 Martin Pitt wrote:
> Alexander Kurtz [2016-10-30 22:05 +0100]:
> > Thanks a lot for your quick reply! You might want to consider also
> > adding "armhf" to that list, since both gnu-efi [0] and u-boot-rpi [1]
> > are also available there (in contrast to "armel" w
On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 07:46 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> I know that arm64 EFI boot works (Canonical uses it in their internal
> OpenStack deployment), but as far as I know there is no existing
> armhf EFI implementation; so this would mean to ship dead bits. Or
> are you aware of any platform where
Alexander Kurtz [2016-10-30 22:05 +0100]:
> Thanks a lot for your quick reply! You might want to consider also
> adding "armhf" to that list, since both gnu-efi [0] and u-boot-rpi [1]
> are also available there (in contrast to "armel" where gnu-efi is
> missing).
I know that arm64 EFI boot works (
On 30 October 2016 at 22:05, Alexander Kurtz wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 22:45 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
>> But indeed gnu-efi does exist on arm64 in testing/unstable now, so I
>> added it
>
> Thanks a lot for your quick reply! You might want to consider also
> adding "armhf" to that list, sinc
On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 22:45 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> But indeed gnu-efi does exist on arm64 in testing/unstable now, so I
> added it
Thanks a lot for your quick reply! You might want to consider also
adding "armhf" to that list, since both gnu-efi [0] and u-boot-rpi [1]
are also available there
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello Alexander,
Alexander Kurtz [2016-10-30 21:32 +0100]:
> While the i386 and amd64 variants of the systemd package do ship the
> systemd-boot binary [0,1], it seems the arm64 variant does not [2] (at
> least there is nothing under /usr/lib/systemd/boot/). As Fedora mana
Package: systemd
Version: 231-10
Hi!
While the i386 and amd64 variants of the systemd package do ship the
systemd-boot binary [0,1], it seems the arm64 variant does not [2] (at
least there is nothing under /usr/lib/systemd/boot/). As Fedora manages
to ship the related files just fine [3], I guess
10 matches
Mail list logo
