[Bug 1549] It must be easier to write tests

[bugzilla-daemon at rtems.org]

https://www.rtems.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1549





--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>  2010-06-11 03:31:45 ---
> --- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsepius at rtems.org>  2010-06-11 03:10:32 ---
> Sebastian, vertainly, there is much of room for improvment, but this PR to me
> is close to qualify as "clueless" ranting.
> 
> I am considering this PR to be not helpful, I am seriously considering to close
> it as "Invalid" and/or "SPAM".

You may be right, but silence will improve nothing.

> Some comments:
> 
>> Grouping by directory or file name prefix is not that different.
> Wrong, it is substantially different.

Ok, it depends on the scope.  For humans its not that different.

>> AM_CPPFLAGS += -I$(top_srcdir)/../support/include
>>
>> # This is a hack.  It makes it hard (impossible?) to add multiple programs to
>> # one Makefile.am. 
> Wrong, you don't seem to understand.
> 
> Correct, it is impossible to add multiple programs to one Makefile.am, but the
> cause is not AM_CPPFLAGS, the cause is make-exe in "*.cfg" and the MANAGERS.

It seem that it was not clear enough were this comment belongs to.  Maybe this
is better:

# A hack follows (goes up to the next comment).  It makes it hard (impossible?)
# to add multiple programs to one Makefile.am.  I guess the reason for this is
# the creation of *.ralf files via $(bsp-post-link).  There has to be another
# way to create *.ralf files from *.exe files.  It would be better to have a
# shell script for this and not a make function.  The *.ralf files created this
# way are also not that useful since they won't be installed.  Only the *.exe
# files will be installed.

LINK_OBJS = $(sp01_OBJECTS) $(sp01_LDADD)
LINK_LIBS = $(sp01_LDLIBS)

sp01$(EXEEXT): $(sp01_OBJECTS) $(sp01_DEPENDENCIES)
    @rm -f sp01$(EXEEXT)
    $(make-exe)

# Hack end.

>> Yes, we have the texinfo files.  Compare the update frequency of the source
>> code path with the documentation tree.  It is a constant burden to keep this
>> synchronized.  Only few people touch the texinfo files at all.  We should move
>> to source code embedded documentation (e.g. Doxygen) entirely.  You can write
>> book style documentation with Doxygen easily.  See
> Apples and oranges:
> * RTEMS doc/ and the doxygen comments serve different purposes.

They are only two means to reach a goal.

> * texinfo is just _one_ output format of documentation.

We should really think about this.

> 
> That said, I agree insofar, as that source-code documentation should be removed
> from doc/ and be replaced with doxygen generated documentation in *info* 
> format (!)

Doxygen can generate Latex, HTML and man pages.  I am not aware that it can
generate info format.

> 
> Finally: IMO, the current doxygen stuff (esp. the online incarnation) is simply
> plain broken and invalid.
> 

To say that something is broken and invalid you need something that specifies
the good and valid.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.rtems.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.