[RTEMS Project] #2540: RSB has problems building into existing directory

[RTEMS trac]

#2540: RSB has problems building into existing directory
----------------------------+----------------------------
 Reporter:  Simon Williams  |       Owner:  Needs Funding
     Type:  defect          |      Status:  assigned
 Priority:  normal          |   Milestone:  Indefinite
Component:  tool/rsb        |     Version:  5
 Severity:  normal          |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                  |  Blocked By:
 Blocking:                  |
----------------------------+----------------------------

Comment (by Sebastian Huber):

 Replying to [comment:17 Chris Johns]:
 > Replying to [comment:16 Sebastian Huber]:
 > > It is not just the Binutils that make problems. There are at least
 five issues in case a tool chain is already present.
 > >
 > > 1. The build uses the existing Binutils instead of the ones built
 right now.
 >
 > If I used the same prefix as an bare metal ELF tool chain could gcc pick
 up that assembler?

 I don't know.

 >
 > Do we need more or better documentation on the `$prefix` in the User
 manual?

 Yes, I didn't find a hint that an existing installation may interfere with
 the current build.

 >
 > > 2. Some header and other files of the existing installation may be
 used instead of the one from the current sources.
 >
 > Why is gcc doing this? It seems wrong and dangerous.

 https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2540#comment:5

 >
 > > 3. The installation adds only files, it does not remove obsolete files
 leaving a mixture of old and new files in the prefix.
 >
 > The binutils and gcc do just this as well. The RSB is not a packaging or
 deployment tool. That is a role I see existing outside of the RTEMS
 project where specialisation and support can happen.

 I think this should be clarified in the documentation.

 >
 > > 4. The Ada installation stops with permission errors.
 >
 > I thought this was in the Ada build when run from python?

 As far as I remember it was an issue in the Python copytree area.

 >
 > > 5. In case something goes wrong it is not easy to figure out that the
 reason is an existing installation that interfered.
 >
 > Agreed, but why is it the role of the RSB tool (not the configuration
 parts) to deal with this?
 >
 > I have offered a solution and I am willing to review patches.

 I think your proposal is fine. I just wanted to highlight that there are
 multiple problems if you have an existing installation.

--
Ticket URL: <http://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2540#comment:18>
RTEMS Project <http://www.rtems.org/>
RTEMS Project