Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> (2016-06-25): > On 2016-06-25, Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> wrote: > > Karsten Merker <mer...@debian.org> (2016-06-25): > >> on armhf we currently face some u-boot-related problems. U-Boot > >> 2016.03 (in unstable and testing) causes kernel hangs under certain > >> conditions on a number of sunxi platforms. These issues are fixed in > >> u-boot v2016.05 (latest official release), but v2016.05 has brought > >> new regressions on the am57xx_evm and firefly-rk3288 platforms, so it > >> cannot go into the archive as is. For details, please refer to > >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825214. > > > > Thanks for bringing this up. > > > >> I would be good to have the u-boot issues fixed before we publish the > >> next d-i release. A possible option would be to backport commit > >> affa020559bca31d6531e19cb1f009c22705a73d from u-boot 2016.05 to > >> u-boot 2016.03 and to urgent the result into testing before doing the > >> d-i release (CCing Vagrant Cascadian, the u-boot maintainer). > >> > >> Kibi, Vagrant: what's your opinion on the topic? > > > > If the fixes are identified and can be applied on top of the current > > packages in unstable, pushing them (upload & urgent) looks like a good > > plan to me. :) > > I can prepare and upload of 2016.03 with patches, but I'm not able to do > as much testing as usual, as i wouldn't be able to recover if the board > tests fail (due to debconf)... but if the patches are limited in scope, > it should be fairly safe to upload.
I understand; AFAICT from Karsten's mail, the scope is indeed very limited if affa020559bca31d6531e19cb1f009c22705a73d is to be cherry-picked alone, so we should be on a rather safe side here? KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
