1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.PORTS.ARM

  • Re: What happened to "u-boot" package for Debian testing distribution o

    From Vagrant Cascadian@21:1/5 to Rick Thomas on Fri Feb 24 05:10:01 2023
    On 2023-02-23, Rick Thomas wrote:
    I just noticed that there are no versions of the package "u-boot" available on my SolidRun CuBox-i.
    However there is a version of "u-boot-imx" available which contains the actual binary
    code for this machine.
    Interestingly, I have other arm-based boxes and none of them have this problem.

    u-boot (2023.01~rc4+dfsg-2) unstable; urgency=medium
    ...
    * debian/control: Drop u-boot meta-package for armhf and mips.
    ...
    -- Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> Thu, 05 Jan 2023 19:38:24 -0800

    I had meant to deprecate it back in ... maybe 2016 or 2018 and finally remembered to do it this release cycle!

    The actual binaries you are using come from u-boot-imx since u-boot
    2014.x versions...


    live well,
    vagrant

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick Thomas@21:1/5 to Vagrant Cascadian on Fri Feb 24 08:00:01 2023
    On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, at 8:02 PM, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
    On 2023-02-23, Rick Thomas wrote:
    I just noticed that there are no versions of the package "u-boot" available on my SolidRun CuBox-i.
    However there is a version of "u-boot-imx" available which contains the actual binary
    code for this machine.
    Interestingly, I have other arm-based boxes and none of them have this problem.

    u-boot (2023.01~rc4+dfsg-2) unstable; urgency=medium
    ...
    * debian/control: Drop u-boot meta-package for armhf and mips.
    ...
    -- Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> Thu, 05 Jan 2023 19:38:24 -0800

    I had meant to deprecate it back in ... maybe 2016 or 2018 and finally remembered to do it this release cycle!

    The actual binaries you are using come from u-boot-imx since u-boot
    2014.x versions...


    live well,
    vagrant

    Ahhh... thanks! That explains it.

    So... Is it true that all I need to do is:
    aptitude unmarkauto u-boot-imx
    aptitude purge u-boot
    ?

    Do I need to do that on all of my arm based machines? If so, is there an approved way to figure out, for any given machine type, which of the "uboot-*" packages I should "unmarkauto?"?

    Rick

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick Thomas@21:1/5 to Rick Thomas on Sat Feb 25 09:10:01 2023
    Please... Anyone with experience here, please speak up. I don't want to do anything stupid, but I *do* need to get this issue straightened out.

    Thanks in advance for any help!
    Rick

    On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, at 10:36 PM, Rick Thomas wrote:
    On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, at 8:02 PM, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
    On 2023-02-23, Rick Thomas wrote:
    I just noticed that there are no versions of the package "u-boot" available on my SolidRun CuBox-i.
    However there is a version of "u-boot-imx" available which contains the actual binary
    code for this machine.
    Interestingly, I have other arm-based boxes and none of them have this problem.

    u-boot (2023.01~rc4+dfsg-2) unstable; urgency=medium
    ...
    * debian/control: Drop u-boot meta-package for armhf and mips.
    ...
    -- Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> Thu, 05 Jan 2023 19:38:24 -0800 >>
    I had meant to deprecate it back in ... maybe 2016 or 2018 and finally
    remembered to do it this release cycle!

    The actual binaries you are using come from u-boot-imx since u-boot
    2014.x versions...


    live well,
    vagrant

    Ahhh... thanks! That explains it.

    So... Is it true that all I need to do is:
    aptitude unmarkauto u-boot-imx
    aptitude purge u-boot
    ?

    Do I need to do that on all of my arm based machines? If so, is there
    an approved way to figure out, for any given machine type, which of the "uboot-*" packages I should "unmarkauto?"?

    Rick

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)