(slowly coming back to old threads, thanks for patience..) Roland Clobus <[email protected]> writes:
> Hello Simon, > > On 25/11/2025 10:43, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Roland Clobus <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> I was offline for the last two weeks. Let me give you some additional >>> pointers: >> Thank you! I'll digest this and split up answers. >> >>> * You want to officially publish the generated images (as I see on >>> debian-devel), are you ready to the the quality assurance of them? >>> Keeping up with all nine versions (times four, for oldstable, >>> stable, testing and sid) keeps our openQA instance [2] rather busy. >>> Luckily, given that the test environment in openQA currently does not >>> contain any firmware-specific simulated hardware, all existing tests >>> would probably show exactly the same output if the Libre images were >>> to be tested. >>> How many image variants are you planning to publish? You are currently >>> at 3 sizes time 2 architectures. >> My focus is on trixie on arm64+amd64 to facilitate OS installation. > > I'm wondering if a live image is what you actually want... Indeed, that is a relevent question, and I'm not certain of the answer myself. The reason I am looking at live-build is because: 1) Live-build easily and reliably gives me a *.ISO that I can run on amd64+arm64 hardware to install Debian on. It seems riscv64+ppc64el are within grasp (?) too, as I've seen patches floating around for them. 2) I can build the ISO without including any non-free stuff. 3) There is a reasonable expectation that I will be able to make my image reproducible. 4) It gives me a Calamares installer that will install a system without reliance on *.udeb's, simplifying the binary audit requirements. So maybe I really want a normal netinst ISO, but the more I get familiar with live-build, the more I like it, and the more I'd like to explore if it possible to avoid having to touch the *.udeb complexity. > If you are focussing on the installation of Debian, without non-free > firmware, there is already a question in the netinst installer (at a > priority below normal) that asks whether you would like to have > non-free-firmware included (which is then followed by questions about > 'non-free and contrib'). My concern is that the netinst images are built and includes non-free firmware in the first place. I know Debian decided this is a feature, which is fine, but it doesn't work for me. >> I would like to add riscv64 and ppc64el support. I saw a riscv64 merge >> request. What is the status on adding that? > > At DebConf25 in Brest I got the impression that RISC-V hardware is > unfortunately currently not powerful enough to run a full-blown > desktop environment (I might be wrong). > > I haven't heard about ppc64el support yet; would that kind of hardware > be suitable to running a desktop environment like GNOME? I think this was answered already, but there are powerful enough both riscv64+ppc64el machines where a desktop is relevant. Both the P550 and the Talos runs GNOME. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
