[Solved] There is No working Arch available for any RPi

[fionnbharr]

After following the guide elsewhere here on archlinuxarm.org regarding the RPi 3B, it's my understanding that the RPi 2 image is the one to use, and that the RPi 3 and 64bit versions are not fully working.

Please let me know if that is not the case.

In looking for a solution to my issue (new RPi3B install, cannot boot after first 'pacman -Syu'), I've noticed a number of threads describing a problem with the kernel when used on the RPi3 family of boards.

Please let me know if that is also not the case.

The implication, then, is that Arch on the RPi3 is unusable. In reading various threads, there are specific use-case problems, but none address the general 'is Arch broken?' status for everyone using a RPi 3.

The documentation here is also not clear: The "Raspberry Pi 3" install guide is separate from the "Raspberry Pi 2" install guide, but it recommends the Pi 2 image. It also suggests NOT using the AArch64 install, but then references the RPi 3 install as (distinct from the AArch64) as a possible install route. There is much more ambiguity here than is customary in an Arch-related Wiki.

Could someone give a definitive overview of the status, and possibly update the Install guide as to which is (or is not) working?

[Kabbone]

I don't know what is not clear at the installation instructions.

The problem with AARCH64 is the lack of driver for wifi,bluetooth and I think the graphic stack, but this is not a specific Arch-problem. If you don't need any of this, probably you could use 64-bit.

With the Rpi2 Image everything is working for me

[fionnbharr]

Yet to be addressed: the RPi 3 image.

How is the RPi3 image distinct from the AArch64 image?

[WarheadsSE]

You mean versus the generic AArch64? The bootloader setup.

[fionnbharr]

That makes sense -- and it isn't clear from the documentation.

I mean: true, by inspection after downloading and visually comparing the files, it's clear to see there's the bootloader difference. But other than that, the documentation isn't entirely forthcoming in describing the differences.

Thank you for the summary!

[fionnbharr]

So, after some helpful hints regarding my RPi3 that won't boot after 'pacman -Syu', it turns out there's a problematic v4l module that renders kernel panics on not just the RPi3, but the -2 and -1 as well.

This means that Arch is, indeed, broken for all platforms. This is not addressed in the install instructions, nor is it addressed on the front 'welcome' page to the website.

It means that someone made a commit of untested code, and put it up for all to use without so much as a warning or caveat. And while I know that Arch is a rolling-release model, and we should be careful about new and untested code -- this has been going on for at least a month. A whole month -- without any upfront mention of a long-known problem.

"Do a 'pacman -Syu' " is *always* the first suggestion when troubleshooting in Arch. Indeed, as Arch users, we are conditioned to understand that the best way to diagnose problems is with a fully-updated set of binaries.

There is no warning to *not* update your system, and there is no highly-visible workaround posted. There isn't even a mention that there is a problem at all.

Quite literally, "pacman -Syu" will break your system.

Shame on the team that committed those updates.

[Kabbone]

Perhaps you should read the complete thread! Arch is not broken for Rpi, nor breaks a pacman -Syu the system for everybody. If you don't have attached the camera module for the pi, the kernel module will not be loaded automatically and everything runs fine. The users with the module can blacklist this module, while it's broken.
So, better be carefull with blaming someone who spends his/her time for providing this system to you

[WarheadsSE]

Yup. Great of the kernel developers for the Pi to have broken something that badly, called it a product, and never have looked past Rasbpian for compilation.

(Yes, they literally never test their kernel code past the compilers they have in Raspbian. Newer gcc is "the problem" according to them)

[fionnbharr]

As Arch is a rolling-release platform, It's my understanding that the installation image packages are simply snapshots of the latest ones as of the time of creating those images -- basically, what you'd get if you had an updated system the same time as the image was packaged.

Seems to me that we can't do that right now -- Stock packages, on a stock RPi board are supposed to run out of the box, with minimal tweaking for, say, network configuration or identification.

We can't do that right now, given the state of the module problems. Blacklisting modules is supposed to be a solution in the odd corner/edge case; a user with an unusual motherboard or memory stick configuration.

But we're trying to use 'stock' packages on a 'stock' RPi Board -- and we cannot do it with the materials we have.

That is the definition of 'broken'. Arch is broken on RPi boards.