Are console images not available from beagleboard.org?

[Chris Green]

I prefer to use 'console' images on my BBBs as they use less space and
I have no need for any of the extras provided by IOT or full GUI
images.

However the console images only seem to be listed in the weekly
snapshots section of the wiki, there aren't any 'recommended' console
images. Shouldn't there be a default/recommended console version as
otherwise I'm using 'bleeding edge'/beta sort of versions.

I only spotted this because I was wondering why the IOT version I
downloaded to put on someone else's BBB was Debian 9.3 but my console
one was running Debian 9.4! :-)


--
Chris Green
·

[Jeff Andich]

Does this page contain what you need?

https://elinux.org/Beagleboard:BeagleBoneBlack_Debian

[Chris Green]

Jeff Andich <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: UTF-8, 13 lines --]

>
>
> Does this page contain what you need?
>
> https://elinux.org/Beagleboard:BeagleBoneBlack_Debian
>

No, that's where I got the 'weekly snapshot' version of the console
image that I'm using. As it's under the heading "Debian Image Testing
Snapshots" it doesn't feel like one should be using the images there
for 'production' installs.

I was hoping there would be a 'recommeded' console image somewhere.

I've not got any actual problems, the install runs perfectly OK, but
for newcomers who want a console only installation it's quite
difficult to find one.

--
Chris Green
·

[Graham]

Chris:

What I have always done is to go here:

http://rcn-ee.net/rootfs/bb.org/testing/

or here:

https://debian.beagleboard.org/images/rcn-ee.net/rootfs/bb.org/testing/

and get the console version corresponding to the full release version.

So, there are console versions of the same software versions available.

--- Graham

==

[Chris Green]

Graham <gra...@flex-radio.com> wrote:
> [-- multipart/alternative, encoding 7bit, 137 lines --]
>
> [-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, charset: UTF-8, 57 lines --]

>
> Chris:
>
> What I have always done is to go here:
>
> http://rcn-ee.net/rootfs/bb.org/testing/
>
> or here:
>
> https://debian.beagleboard.org/images/rcn-ee.net/rootfs/bb.org/testing/
>
> and get the console version corresponding to the full release version.
>
>
> So, there are console versions of the same software versions available.
>

Not really, those are the weekly 'testing' snapshots. If you look
they are are Debian 9.4. The 'recommended' release versions on the
beagleboard.org site are all still Debian 9.3 (but there's not a
console version there).

--
Chris Green
·

[Graham]

If what you want is the console version corresponding to 
   Debian 9.3 2018-01-28 4GB SD LXQT image

And you go to

https://debian.beagleboard.org/images/rcn-ee.net/rootfs/bb.org/testing/2018-01-28/stretch-console/

it sure looks like Debian 9.3 to me.

The one you want is:

bone-debian-9.3-console-armhf-2018-01-28-1gb.img.xz

Now this one is for running from the uSD card.

If you want to turn it into a "flasher" you need to follow the instructions about editing the correct uEnv.txt file

--- Graham

==

[Chris Green]

Graham <gra...@flex-radio.com> wrote:
> [-- multipart/alternative, encoding 7bit, 176 lines --]
>
> [-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, charset: UTF-8, 73 lines --]

>
> If what you want is the console version corresponding to
> Debian 9.3 2018-01-28 4GB SD LXQT image
>
> And you go to
> https://debian.beagleboard.org/images/rcn-ee.net/rootfs/bb.org/testing/2018-01-28/stretch-console/
>
> it sure looks like Debian 9.3 to me.
>
> The one you want is:
> bone-debian-9.3-console-armhf-2018-01-28-1gb.img.xz
>
> Now this one is for running from the uSD card.
> If you want to turn it into a "flasher" you need to follow the instructions
> about editing the correct uEnv.txt file
>

Yes, OK, that's a 9.3 console image but it's still only a weekly
'snapshot'.

I'm not personally desperately after an old[er] console image, I'm
just saying that there isn't a 'recommended' default console image
like there is for the IOT and full GUI images.

--
Chris Green
·

[Jeff Andich]

I think we've wrestled with this issue as well.  We're still working with Jessie console images from 

https://rcn-ee.com/rootfs/bb.org/testing/2018-02-01/console/, and they seem to be pretty stable, from the testing we've done to date.  

I'm not yet sure and am still very curious about the test results/testing status of the images which are placed in the testing folder. I THINK what you need to do is look at the github revision/commit history for each component (e.g. uboot, debian, and kernel version) in a given image) to see why an image was updated (e.g. 2018-01-01 to 2018-02-10, but if there's a place which posts what the test results are (and a place for users to post their own experiences) for a given image, other than github, please let us know!!

Question(s):

For a given LXQT image, how much effort is involved in converting that "GUI" image to a console image?  Can't you just remove all of the "extra packages" from the LXQT image until you have the desired console image per the following procedure, or is it more involved than that?  Aren't the pinmuxes the same?

1) Spit out the debian package list for  an existing console image (even the weekly image).

2) Spit out the debian package list for the released LXQT image (from the same desired major Debian revision as #1 (e.g. jessie, stretch)

3) Compare the package lists from 1,2.

4) Use apt remove on the released LXQT image to remove the "excess" packages in the LXQT image until it's package list matches the package list of the console image?

Thanks!!

Jeff

[Graham]

Well, they are weekly testing releases.

And, some of those weekly testing releases are chosen to become formal releases.

And if they had to chang anything in them, there would be a new/different  date/version on them.

So if you actually want the Console version corresponding to the formal 'release' version, there it is.

If you want Gerald to change something about how releases are posted, you will have to take that up with Gerald directly.

I think he is deliberately restricting what he posts on the release page, so he limits the damage a newbie can do to their BBB to just the plug-in card, which is easily re-programmable.

As far as:

>>> "4) Use apt remove on the released LXQT image to remove the "excess" packages in the LXQT image until it's package list matches the package list of the console image?"

Yes, you can do it that way, but it sure sounds like the "hard way" to me.

--- Graham

==

[Chris Green]

Graham <gra...@flex-radio.com> wrote:
> [-- multipart/alternative, encoding 7bit, 270 lines --]
>
> [-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, charset: UTF-8, 138 lines --]

>
> Well, they are weekly testing releases.
>
> And, some of those weekly testing releases are chosen to become formal
> releases.
>

Yes.

> And if they had to chang anything in them, there would be a new/different
> date/version on them.
>
> So if you actually want the Console version corresponding to the formal
> 'release' version, there it is.
>

Er, where? If the release version was marked/tagged somehow that
would be helpful but (as far as I can see) it isn't.

[snip]

>
> As far as:
> >>> "4) Use apt remove on the released LXQT image to remove the "excess"
> packages in the LXQT image until it's package list matches the package list
> of the console image?"
> Yes, you can do it that way, but it sure sounds like the "hard way" to me.
>

Very hard work IMHO, it's non-trivial to work out which packages to
remove and I'm pretty sure that there's a *lot* to remove too.

--
Chris Green
·