GNU bug report logs - #64068
[PATCH] gnu: Add u-boot-lichee-rv-dock.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant <at> debian.org>
To: Z572 <873216071 <at> qq.com>, 64068 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>
Subject: [bug#64068] [PATCH] gnu: Add u-boot-lichee-rv-dock.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:49:45 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2023-06-14, Z572 wrote:
> * gnu/packages/bootloaders.scm (u-boot-lichee-rv-dock): New variable.
> * gnu/packages/patches/u-boot-lichee-rv-dock-disable-openssl.patch: New file.
> * gnu/local.mk(dist_patch_DATA): register it.

Thanks for the patches!

This also reminds me that u-boot is falling a little behind (there is
2023.01, 2023.04 and soon 2023.07)... and while I would not want to block
adding support for this board, I would be curious if it still works with
newer u-boot versions...


> +(define-public u-boot-lichee-rv-dock
...
> +                  (search-patches
> +                   "u-boot-lichee-rv-dock-disable-openssl.patch")
> +                  ;;; rebase from %u-boot-allow-disabling-openssl-patch
> +                  (filter (negate (cut string-contains <> "openssl"))
> +                          (origin-patches (package-source base)))))

This seems a little tricky and possibly error-prone if another patch
with openssl in the name is included at a later time, it could break
this package. I almost wonder if it wouldn't be better to merge the
functionality of the two patches disabling openssl than applying a
board-specific patch?


I have not had a chance to test that this package builds; I presume you
have tested that it actually boots?


live well,
  vagrant

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.