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).
