On 4 March 2014 01:54, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> wrote: > Control: severity 730833 important > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:19:29PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote: >> On 18/02/2014 21:54, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:35:09PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote: >> >> On 18/02/2014 19:11, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> > If the best thing is to drop non-linux architectures, I'd be fine with >> > that. >> > I don't want to drop architectures from the packaging without asking >> > porters >> > first. >> >> I think if upstream doesn't consider it a bug to copy non-portable >> declarations from >> Linux headers, it's probably reasonable to consider u-boot as Linux-specific >> software. >> >> Attempting to fight this kind of trend is tends to be very costly, but >> ultimately it's >> your call as maintainer to decide whether it's worth it. > > Thanks for the comments. I'm thinking it's not worth the effort, and plan to > mark it as linux only in the next upload, and lowering the severity on the bug > now.
For what it's worth, we build u-boot itself on FreeBSD for a couple of targets using the crochet tool. It has some board-specific patches for FreeBSD but it doesn't seem too large. I believe crochet does not use u-boot-tools, although we do have uboot-mkimage in the ports tree. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
