On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Stuart Henderson wrote:

Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 18:08:39 +0000
From: Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org>
To: adr <a...@sdf.org>
Cc: ports@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Add u-boot-tools flavor

On 2022/03/01 16:18, adr wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Stuart Henderson wrote:
I suggest doing this as a separate port.

That was my first intention but somehow I thought it would be easer
to mantain keeping it in the same port. If you (the developers,
specially the arm ones) think this is better I could write another
port when I have some time.

Some advise about the distfile? Should I stick to the same version?

I would stick to the same version.

There is an alternative way to handle it, rearrange the layout e.g.

ports/sysutils/u-boot/aarch64
ports/sysutils/u-boot/arm
ports/sysutils/u-boot/riscv64
ports/sysutils/u-boot/tools

sharing common parts in sysutils/u-boot/Makefile.inc

The current u-boot port isn't making standard use of the FLAVORS
mechanism (which is really meant for ports which can be built with
different options but essentially produce the same thing; i.e. most
files have the same name between the different flavours and they can't
be installed together). It made more sense doing it that way at first
as it grew from just an arm build, but as the port gets more complex
there are more reasons to separate them out.

(I'd be happy enough with a totally separate port, but if you did
feel like having them so they could be maintained together, that's the
obvious way how).

I followed the above layout, builds ok on aarch64. Could someone
test it in another arch? And please revise the port, I'm not really
familiar with the port system. For example I'd to copy the distinfo file
and the patches to all the subdirs. I really dislike using links but maybe
they are ok for you.

Another thing I don't really like is the use of FILES, it makes
the makefile shorter but it generates errors (ignored) in the fake
stage. Maybe it would be better to group the boards by their compiled
files and use those different lists in the install target. This
also would make the makefile reflect the wanted result of the build
stage.

adr.

Attachment: u-boot.tar.bz2
Description: Binary data

Reply via email to