Re: sysutils/u-boot-tools package

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Brook Milligan <brook%nmsu.edu@localhost> writes:

> I am working on a sysutils/u-boot-tools package for some of the tools linux uses to manipulate u-boot images.  For example, the boot.scr script required to boot some arm boards can be created with mkimage.
>
> - The two tools currently in the package are mkimage and dumpimage (a
> few others could be added if warranted).  These seem like very generic
> names, and I’m pretty certain the former conflicts with a NetBSD
> program of the same name.  Should these names be kept?  Should they be
> renamed?  If so, to what?  Would uboot-mkimage and uboot-dumpimage (or
> similar) make sense?  Would that be confusing?  Should they be in
> their own directory, rather than in bin?

I would say that using names that are likely to collide and/or be
confusing is an upstream bug, and mkimage/dumpimage definitely qualify.
Renaming to uboot-mkimage and uboot-dumpimage as you suggest is
sensible, as subdirs are too complicated, but the big question is
whether people run these occasionally or if they are in scripts that
people are going to want to run.  If the latter, that argues for subdir.

> - As with other u-boot packages, this requires a cross-compiler (I’ve
> chosen arm arbitrarily), even though the tools themselves are compiled
> with a native compiler.  I have yet to find a workaround.  The fallout
> is that ${INSTALL_BIN} does not work to install the programs, because
> the image type (i.e., based upon the host) does not match the target
> (i.e., based upon the cross compiler).  I am opting to install with
> ${CP} instead.  Is there a better solution?

I guess in theory we should have a way to have both cross and native in
the ame package.

Are you saying that it has to be cross because uboot needs cross in
terms of how the configure stage owrks, but that it uses the native
compiler?  I wonder if we could separate out the cross support into
"ensure a cross compiler is available" and "flip to doing cross".  But
the ick of cp is somewhat minor.  I do wonder if you can figure out how
to define what install would have been and use a real native install.