Raptor Talos boot issues with Debian image
Hi. I'm having trouble booting the Debian netinst ISO images on a Talos II Lite mainboard. It shows up in petitboot, but selecting 'Default install' results in the usual output 'SIGTERM received, booting...' (from petitboot?) output and then nothing happens. Both Ubuntu 20.04 and Fedora 34 images works fine. Any ideas on how to debug this further? I'm using https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/ppc64el/iso-cd/debian-11.1.0-ppc64el-netinst.iso and have verified SHA256 checksum, and tested several USB sticks as well as OpenBMC virtual media. I have tried the 11.0 and some 10.x images too. /Simon signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Raptor Talos boot issues with Debian image
Simon Josefsson writes: > Hi. I'm having trouble booting the Debian netinst ISO images on a Talos > II Lite mainboard. It shows up in petitboot, but selecting 'Default > install' results in the usual output 'SIGTERM received, booting...' > (from petitboot?) output and then nothing happens. Both Ubuntu 20.04 > and Fedora 34 images works fine. Any ideas on how to debug this > further? Following up to myself: the issue was that the Debian netinst image only output things to the serial port, and not to the VGA port that I used. Both Ubuntu and Fedora output to VGA, so I was surprised to see different behaviour with Debian. Could Debian be made to output to both serial and VGA by default? Just an idea. /Simon signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Raptor Talos boot issues with Debian image
ons 2021-12-29 klockan 20:50 -0500 skrev aliasarmor: > Somebody on the rcs wiki was able to get Bullseye 11.1 installed, > they mentioned the installer going only to serial but did not > elaborate on the solution they used. > https://wiki.raptorcs.com/wiki/Operating_System_Compatibility_List Hi. That was me -- I should have clarified: I used the serial port interface over the web interface to the BMC to install Debian. Once installed, Debian is shown nicely on the VGA output and works fine. It is just the installer that doesn't show anything on VGA. /Simon signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
missing rebuild of dovecote-imapd-dbgsym?
Hi Are debug symbols on powerpc for the recent dovecot security advisory missing, or am I doing something wrong? /Simon root@pippi:~# apt-get install dovecot-imapd-dbgsym Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: dovecot-imapd-dbgsym : Depends: dovecot-imapd (= 1:2.3.13+dfsg1-2+deb11u1) but 1:2.3.13+dfsg1-2 is to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. root@pippi:~# signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: missing rebuild of dovecote-imapd-dbgsym?
Paul Wise writes: > On Mon, 2022-08-22 at 07:10 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> Are debug symbols on powerpc for the recent dovecot security advisory >> missing, or am I doing something wrong? > ... >> dovecot-imapd-dbgsym : Depends: dovecot-imapd (= 1:2.3.13+dfsg1-2+deb11u1) >> but 1:2.3.13+dfsg1-2 is to be installed > > As far as I know powerpc isn't supported for Debian stable nor the > Debian security updates archive. Interesting -- where can I read about that? The release notes says that ppc64el is an officially supported architecture for Debian 11: https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/ppc64el/release-notes/ch-whats-new.en.html#idm120 I don't see any warning about ppc64el being a non-supported architecture when downloading official installer images, nor when download cloud-images: https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/ > Also the +deb11u1 version of the package isn't in the Debian security > updates archive, only the main Debian archive in the > stable-proposed-updates suite. Ah, right, my mistake. > What do your apt sources look like? This is what the cloud-image installed for me: root@pippi:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye main deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye main deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-security main deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-security main deb http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye-updates main deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye-updates main deb http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye-backports main deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye-backports main root@pippi:~# This is a local customization: root@pippi:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list.d/debug.list deb http://deb.debian.org/debian-debug/ bullseye-debug main deb http://deb.debian.org/debian-debug/ bullseye-proposed-updates-debug main root@pippi:~# Thanks, you helped me find the problem -- after removing the bullseye-proposed-updates-debug line all packages installed fine. I guess somehow apt preferred the version from b-p-u-d compared to what's in b-d and failed. The reason I used the above lines came from the wiki: https://wiki.debian.org/AutomaticDebugPackages It says I should use proposed-updates-debug to get debug symbols for stable security updates, which is something I want. Isn't the problem that somehow the package from bullseye-proposed-updates-debug was prefered over the one from bullseye-debug? For security updates you want that, for updates to stable you don't want that. Maybe there should be a bullseye-updates-debug distribution? > What is the architecture of your system? Run dpkg --print-architecture ppc64el /Simon signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: missing rebuild of dovecote-imapd-dbgsym?
Paul Wise writes: > On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 10:03 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Paul Wise writes: >> > On Mon, 2022-08-22 at 07:10 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> > >> > As far as I know powerpc isn't supported for Debian stable nor the >> > Debian security updates archive. >> >> Interesting -- where can I read about that? The release notes says that >> ppc64el is an officially supported architecture for Debian 11: > > Your initial mail mentioned powerpc, which is the older 32-bit port, > while you are using the newer ppc64el port, which is supported. Right. >> Isn't the problem that somehow the package from >> bullseye-proposed-updates-debug was prefered over the one from >> bullseye-debug? For security updates you want that, for updates to >> stable you don't want that. Maybe there should be a >> bullseye-updates-debug distribution? > > That is the correct analysis yeah. The wiki page you linked has a bug > about adding a dbgsym archive for the debian-security archive, but > there hasn't been any work done on it at all yet, so I doubt the issue > will be fixed any time soon. For now I suggest either dropping the > b-p-u-d from your apt sources or pinning them to low priority and only > ever installing them manually. You could also add the non-debug suite > bullseye-proposed-updates to your apt sources, but then you would get > additional low-priority updates ahead of the point releases. > > https://bugs.debian.org/894081 > https://wiki.debian.org/AptConfiguration#apt_preferences_.28APT_pinning.29 Good pointers, thank you! Yes, it seems I re-discovered that bug report, sorry for the noise. /Simon signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: failed sparc/powerpc build of libidn 1.22-1
Hi, The java code in libidn fails to build using GCJ on Sparc and PowerPC. Complete link to log quoted below, but the relevant part is shown inline. Any ideas? It seems like the gcj compiler is broken on these architectures. /Simon make[6]: Entering directory `/build/buildd-libidn_1.22-1-sparc-O07rsn/libidn-1.22/java/gnu/inet/encoding' CLASSPATH=../../../../java:./../../../../java:$CLASSPATH javac -d ../../../../javaCombiningClass.java Composition.java DecompositionKeys.java DecompositionMappings.java IDNA.java IDNAException.java NFKC.java Punycode.java PunycodeException.java RFC3454.java Stringprep.java StringprepException.java /usr/lib/sparc-linux-gnu/gcc/sparc-linux-gnu/4.4.6/ecj1: error while loading shared libraries: libgcj_bc.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory make[6]: *** [classdist_noinst.stamp] Error 1 Debian buildds writes: > * Source package: libidn > * Version: 1.22-1 > * Architecture: sparc > * State: failed > * Suite: sid > * Builder: lebrun.debian.org > * Build log: > https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=libidn&arch=sparc&ver=1.22-1&stamp=1308563014&file=log > > Please note that these notifications do not necessarily mean bug reports > in your package but could also be caused by other packages, temporary > uninstallabilities and arch-specific breakages. A look at the build log > despite this disclaimer would be appreciated however. Debian buildds writes: > * Source package: libidn > * Version: 1.22-1 > * Architecture: powerpc > * State: failed > * Suite: sid > * Builder: poulenc.debian.org > * Build log: > https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=libidn&arch=powerpc&ver=1.22-1&stamp=1308562221&file=log > > Please note that these notifications do not necessarily mean bug reports > in your package but could also be caused by other packages, temporary > uninstallabilities and arch-specific breakages. A look at the build log > despite this disclaimer would be appreciated however. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zklczjgl@latte.josefsson.org
Re: failed sparc/powerpc build of libidn 1.22-1
Martin Alfke writes: >> /usr/lib/sparc-linux-gnu/gcc/sparc-linux-gnu/4.4.6/ecj1: error while >> loading shared libraries: libgcj_bc.so.1: cannot open shared object > > Seems the same as bug #630417 > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=630417 Thanks! > Which version of gcj are you using? > According to the mentioned bug this is fixed in version 4.6.0-6 Libidn depend on unversioned 'gcj', so it will use whatever version is available on the buildd's. It seems sparc has gcj 4.4.6-6 and powerpc has 4.6.0-13. What's holding up gcj on sparc? For powerpc, the error seems strange if indeed powerpc has a more recent gcj. The error message suggest it is 4.6.1 though?! /usr/lib/powerpc-linux-gnu/gcc/powerpc-linux-gnu/4.6.1/ecj1: error while loading shared libraries: libgcj_bc.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87liww4l1x@latte.josefsson.org
Re: failed sparc/powerpc build of libidn 1.22-1
Martin Alfke writes: > On Jun 20, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> Martin Alfke writes: >> >>>> /usr/lib/sparc-linux-gnu/gcc/sparc-linux-gnu/4.4.6/ecj1: error while >>>> loading shared libraries: libgcj_bc.so.1: cannot open shared object >>> >>> Seems the same as bug #630417 >>> >>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=630417 >> >> Thanks! >> >>> Which version of gcj are you using? >>> According to the mentioned bug this is fixed in version 4.6.0-6 >> >> Libidn depend on unversioned 'gcj', so it will use whatever version is >> available on the buildd's. It seems sparc has gcj 4.4.6-6 and powerpc >> has 4.6.0-13. What's holding up gcj on sparc? >> >> For powerpc, the error seems strange if indeed powerpc has a more recent >> gcj. The error message suggest it is 4.6.1 though?! >> >> /usr/lib/powerpc-linux-gnu/gcc/powerpc-linux-gnu/4.6.1/ecj1: error >> while loading shared libraries: libgcj_bc.so.1: cannot open shared >> object file: No such file or directory >> >> /Simon > > Looking further into the bug #630417: > > "Found in version gcj-4.6/4.6.0-13 > Fixed in version gcc-defaults/1.105" > > But: the upload was made for gcc-defaults/1.105 and gcc-4.6.0-6 Ok, so possibly #630417 does not fix the problem? I'm cc'ing the bug for further help with debugging. As far as I can tell, the powerpc buildd is using gcj 4.6.0-13 (i.e., later than 4.6.0-6) and is still experiencing the problem explained in the #630417 bug report. Complete log is available here: https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=libidn&arch=powerpc&ver=1.22-1&stamp=1308562221&file=log Any ideas? Thanks, /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87wrgg32qf@latte.josefsson.org
Re: failed sparc/powerpc build of libidn 1.22-1
Which version of 'gcc-defaults' is installed on the powerpc buildd? I can't tell from https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=libidn&arch=powerpc&ver=1.22-1&stamp=1308562221&file=log and version older than 1.105 appears to have a bug causing build failure: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=630417 If gcc-defaults is older than 1.105, could it be upgraded to a later version? Otherwise, could someone re-schedule another build of the package? Gcc-defaults 1.105 entered testing a few days ago, so I'm hoping the buildd already has it and a re-build is all that is needed. Thanks, /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87liwewo5u@latte.josefsson.org
