Bug 1757868 - Package uboot-tools is not available in EPEL8
Summary: Package uboot-tools is not available in EPEL8
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: uboot-tools
Version: epel8
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dan Horák
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-10-02 15:28 UTC by jcastran
Modified: 2020-02-21 12:46 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-02-21 12:46:58 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1155029 0 unspecified CLOSED Package uboot-tools is not available in EPEL7 2023-04-06 08:02:58 UTC

Description jcastran 2019-10-02 15:28:15 UTC
Description of problem:
From the uboot-tools package we use mkimage to create uboot files. This package is available in Fedora but not in rhel8. https://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/fedora/updates/testing/31/x86_64/Packages/u/uboot-tools-2019.10-0.3.rc3.fc31.x86_64.html

Requesting uboot-tools in EPEL 8


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
EPEL 8

Actual results:
uboot-tools is only available for Fedora and in RHEL 6 EPEL

Expected results:
uboot-tools available for EPEL 8

Additional info:
 This was also requested for EPEL 7 which did not get resolved. 
   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155029

Comment 1 Peter Robinson 2019-10-02 15:31:10 UTC
Why is it needed for el8?

Comment 2 jcastran 2019-10-02 16:00:03 UTC
It was requested for mkimage to create uboot files.

Comment 3 Carlos Santos 2019-11-22 16:22:52 UTC
What uboot-tools features are required?

If FIT support is required then it will also require DTC, currently available from rhel-8-server-codeready-builder-rpms, only.

Is FIT signature verification support required?

Comment 4 Michele Casaburo 2019-11-27 13:37:40 UTC
Hi,
I do not have a list of features, just that they are currently using: 
u-boot-mkimage-v2013.07+git0+62c175fbb8-r0.0.x86_64

regarding FIT, not, it is not required

Thank you

Comment 5 Sam Wachira 2020-01-14 17:28:40 UTC
Hi Carlos,

Are we any further forward with this request?

Thanks

Sam

Comment 6 Carlos Santos 2020-01-14 18:38:25 UTC
(In reply to Sam Wachira from comment #5)
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> Are we any further forward with this request?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Sam

As we already discussed offline, no progress so far but I don't believe that uboot-tools will be accepted as a RHEL package.

Comment 7 Peter Robinson 2020-01-15 04:41:14 UTC
(In reply to jcastran from comment #2)
> It was requested for mkimage to create uboot files.

All modern U-Boot and devices use distro boot which uses standard OOTB kernel/initramfs files so there should be no need to use mkimage to create U-Boot files, Fedora hasn't used that portion of U-Boot for some time. For aarch64 we even use grub2/shim so again there's no need to do that.

Why is it needed in EPEL, who is going to support/maintain it in EPEL?

Comment 8 Sam Wachira 2020-01-30 09:58:52 UTC
Hi Peter,

Use case is a customer using /usr/bin/mkimage to create images for ppc and arm boards.
mkimage is currently available on Fedora from uboot-tools.x86_64 package.

The request is for mkimage to be available from EPEL for use with RHEL.
It is understood that no support applies for any EPEL packages and that is fine.

Since uboot-tools.x86_64 package is available on Fedora, who currently supports and maintains it?

Sam

Comment 9 Peter Robinson 2020-01-30 10:04:35 UTC
> Use case is a customer using /usr/bin/mkimage to create images for ppc and
> arm boards.
> mkimage is currently available on Fedora from uboot-tools.x86_64 package.

Why aren't they using distro-boot and hence there is no need to wrap kernel/initramfs using mkimage.

> Since uboot-tools.x86_64 package is available on Fedora, who currently
> supports and maintains it?

I do, I have no time or interest in doing it for EPEL-8 for the next decade.

Comment 10 Sam Wachira 2020-02-03 10:41:13 UTC
Hi Peter,

> Why aren't they using distro-boot and hence there is no need to wrap kernel/initramfs using mkimage.
Distro boot was suggested to the customer. However, they confirmed it is not applicable to their use case as their boards don't have local storage.

> I do, I have no time or interest in doing it for EPEL-8 for the next decade.
Would you be willing to formalise this response in a way that can be shared with the customer?

Comment 11 Scott Herold 2020-02-05 14:53:35 UTC
(In reply to Sam Wachira from comment #10)
> Hi Peter,
> 
> > Why aren't they using distro-boot and hence there is no need to wrap kernel/initramfs using mkimage.
> Distro boot was suggested to the customer. However, they confirmed it is not
> applicable to their use case as their boards don't have local storage.
> 
> > I do, I have no time or interest in doing it for EPEL-8 for the next decade.
> Would you be willing to formalise this response in a way that can be shared
> with the customer?

I will work with you Sam to provide a PM Message based on the engineering position.

Comment 12 Terry Bowling 2020-02-21 12:46:58 UTC
Providing NACK and closing bz.  Provided formal response to customer.

Fedora maintainers for the uboot tooling (including mkimage) cannot provide any guarantees around ongoing support and maintenance of the uboot packages.  Red Hat will not pull packages into EPEL or RHEL that lack strong upstream/Fedora support, maintenance, and testing.  At this point, there is not enough confidence that Red Hat can provide an acceptable experience without significant ongoing risk for these packages, and will not be able to provide them.  The source for uboot-tools is available from upstream via its GitLab page: https://gitlab.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot.  Red Hat has been unable to determine alternative approaches to the requested functionality.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.