This cmdline argument is now a no-op. Drop it everywhere and add a new
CI check to enforce this.
Adjust the deprecated "minimal" initramfs variant to use
pmos.debug-shell to enable logging instead. It doesn't /support/
dropping to a shell, so the variable takes on a different meaning. But
that's ok since it's at least more consistent.
[ci:ignore-count]
[ci:skip-vercheck]
Signed-off-by: Caleb Connolly <caleb@postmarketos.org>
Tweaked-by: Oliver Smith <ollieparanoid@postmarketos.org>
[ci:skip-build]: kernel builds are very likely to go through now
The fbdev backend was removed with Weston 10 which has been out for a
good while now. This device should be able to use the DRM backend
anyway given that it uses the A64 SoC which also e.g. the PinePhone
uses.
Additionally, the comment about Xwayland being broken contradicts the
actual configuration file where Xwayland actually is being enabled
(xwayland=true), so this shouldn't be causing any regressions even if it
actually is broken.
uboot-tools is provided by u-boot-tools but sometimes apk still gets
confused. This change prevents errors such as
pine64-pinephone:~$ sudo apk upgrade --verbose
WARNING: Failed to perform initial self-upgrade, continuing with full upgrade.
ERROR: unable to select packages:
uboot-tools (virtual):
provided by: u-boot-tools
required by: device-pine64-pinephone-0.25-r1[uboot-tools]
[ci:ignore-count]
[ci:skip-build]: already built in CI successfully
For most firmware packages we use a vendor- prefix to make it clear
who has provided the firmware. The firmware-rtl8723bt package is only
used for Pine64 devices and actually contains configs that are specific
to Pine64 hardware (e.g. rtl8723bs_config-pine64.bin).
Let's rename it to firmware-pine64-rtl8723bt to make this more clear.
Also cleanup the APKBUILD a bit and provide the LICENSE file in a -doc
subpackage so we can legally redistribute that firmware.
At the moment we have Contributor: lines on some packages (but not all of them),
but often they don't represent the actual contributors to the package very well.
E.g. when we added them retroactively to the device packages we only added
the initial contributor (which isn't necessarily the person
who made most of the work for a device...)
The Git history is the most representative source for figuring out
who contributed to a package, so there is no reason to duplicate that
into the APKBUILD.
[skip ci]: way too many packages
Prepare for better device categorization by moving everything to testing
subdir first.
[skip-ci]: chicken-egg problem: passing pmaports CI depends on pmbootstrap MR
depends on this MR
Related: postmarketos#16
