Releasing 4.11

Cynthia Rempel cynt6007 at
Fri Feb 8 03:08:23 UTC 2013


I know portions of the RTEMS source are quite dated, but look like really good ideas, like the NSIS installer.  Would it make sense to move contrib/minGW into either rtems-crossrpms or rtems-buildsys, and make updating the NSIS installer into an "open project"?

Would releasing RTEMS as separate packages make the release cycle easier?  For example: 
Could the tools be released in a separate package from the rest of RTEMS?
Could the board support packages could possibly be another package? The cpukit could be a third? And the test-suites could be a fourth?...

Of course, the above packages would still have to be developed together, (one git repository) but perhaps some of RTEMS would be ready for release before other parts?

Just a thought...

From: rtems-devel-bounces at [rtems-devel-bounces at] on behalf of Gedare Bloom [gedare at]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:22 PM
To: Joel Sherrill
Cc: rtems-devel at
Subject: Re: Releasing 4.11

Speaking of newlib... are we really patching 2.5megs of it?

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Joel Sherrill <Joel.Sherrill at> wrote:
> I agree. We need new release procedures and supporting scripts. Whatever that entails.
> +1 on the GSOC code. We need to ping each student and merge.
> I have a patch to update a BSD .h file in Newlib. I posted it but no one commented. It needs addressing so 4.11 doesn't need any patches to work more on the new TCP stack.
> --joel
> Gedare Bloom <gedare at> wrote:
> I'd like to see how much of the last GSOC can be committed. I'm going
> to push the atomics through shortly.
> I'm not sure how much of the old scripts we should keep, and what we
> should just forge ahead with and define new processes. Maybe we can
> "set a date" and work through the process on IRC, once we get the
> outstanding problems resolved.
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Joel Sherrill <Joel.Sherrill at> wrote:
>> That's the biggest hurdle.
>> Redo the Makefile.maint to use got.
>> Rename the change log files
>> Daniel Hellstrom has some patches but we may have to wait for them since he is just coming back from new parent leave.
>> We may want to do a warning sweep and definitely a test sweep.
>> Chris has mentioned a standard report at release time and this may be an opportunity to define that.
>> --joel
>> Gedare Bloom <gedare at> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> What will it take to release 4.11.0?
>> Off the top of my head, I know that the ARM toolchain needs to be
>> fixed, and we need to decide on what version of tools should be
>> packaged with the release. Other issues relate to actually cutting and
>> testing the release, which can be dealt with during the actual release
>> once we "set a date".
>> -Gedare
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtems-devel mailing list
>> rtems-devel at
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel at

More information about the devel mailing list