[pkg-fso-maint] Bug#612966: Bug#612966: Merge with u-boot?
Per Andersson
avtobiff at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 14:03:56 UTC 2011
Ohai!
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Loïc Minier <lool at dooz.org> wrote:
> Hey again
>
> I prepared an u-boot upload which ships fw_printenv and a fw_setenv
> symlink in u-boot-tools and which takes over uboot-envtools (dummy
> transitional package) in git at:
> git://git.debian.org/collab-maint/u-boot.git
>
> I'd prefer hearing from the maintainer, Per Andersson, to confirm it's
> ok for me to proceed to an upload; it would be towards experimental for
> now, but I'd move to unstable with the 2011.03 release of u-boot (or a
> pre-release).
This is totally fine for me. I have asked earlier about merging uboot-envtools
and uboot-mkimage into the u-boot package. [0]
> Some implementation notes:
>
> * I opted not to install the tools/env/README as it was mostly aimed
> towards people building the tools rather than using them
> * I have a warning with crc32()'s signature with gcc-4.5, but not with
> 4.4; I'll file a bug to look into the warnings; my preference would
> be to use the same prototype as zlib (as uboot-envtools does in a
> Debian patch), but I'm not sure what this entails upstream; for now,
> this is built against the builtin crc32 in u-boot; I've opened a bug
> against the u-boot source package to remember about this
> * I copied over the examples and man pages (need to submit these
> upstream); perhaps the configs should be generated during the build
> instead; one important issue is copyright of the examples; I found a
> couple of authors via debian/changelog, but I decided that the data
> was publicly available and that the config files were mechanically
> derived from the factory hardware layout; concerning comments, most
> had no difference with upstream's; I found the following differences:
> * typos (redundand vs redundant)
> * qnap_ts101.config: explains primary versus secondary environment; I
> need to figure out what to do with this; I've included a stripped
> down version in the mean time
> * qnap_ts119-219.config: documents machine names; I decided this
> information was also mechanical
> * I checked the Vcs-Git packaging repo and rescued a fix from there;
> there are two things I didn't pick up:
> * uboot-envedit script; this does indeed make sense within u-boot,
> but I don't want to track multiple upstreams; maybe this should be
> sent upstream?
I have sent uboot-envedit to upstream IIRC. [1]
> * debconf / automatic configuration: I'm not too happy with more
> and more packages maintaining a list of board Hardware: names :-/
> I have some ideas to fix this on the long term, but it will take
> time; also, I'm not too hot on debconf myself: I'd rather see d-i
> install the correct config, perhaps in flash-kernel or some udeb
> with board-specific knowledge
Wouldn't this be suited for a u-boot-udeb?
> * I checked the BTS and picked configs from #582832 and #582913 and
> commented on #591604 which should be kept open and moved to u-boot
> * I looked at debian/TODO; I am not sure I understood points 1 and 2
> being made there; Section/Priority seemed correct
> * I'm using a specially crafted Version: field for u-boot's
> uboot-envtools as u-boot's source version was lower
>
> Suggestions on the above are very welcome!
Thanks for the work you do!
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2010/08/msg00805.html
[1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fso-maint/2009-August/001653.html
--
Per
> Thanks
> --
> Loďc Minier
>
More information about the pkg-fso-maint
mailing list