Building and Testing a Canadian Cross-Compiler

[Rempel, Cynthia]

Hi,

I think moving to another build system is really worth considering. Virtually every build system is faster than autotools, and hopefully we could then do continuous integration (hint, hint). One of the fastest ones from the comparison charts I showed earlier was a build system composed of just Makefiles, it even beat out Waf... Although Waf was also much faster than autotools (so maybe good enough)... perhaps we could identify what our build system priorities are, and how to accomplish them with a new build system.

I know Fedora is the build of choice for RTEMS, what other build (not necessarily host) systems should we be looking at? I'm using Ubuntu, and started playing with pcBSD (as it's in the top 10 on distrowatch). Other distros on distrowatch I thought were worth concentrating on were: slackware (but that cost money which I don't want to spend), arch,  and Ubuntu.

The ones I'm not so sure how much of priority Mageia, CentOS, PCLinuxOS, and openSUSE are... because they use rpms, so after handling the Fedora build, versions are probably the main issue there.  Similarly, Debian is where Ubuntu packages originate from (but paradoxically Debian uses much older package versions in general and is even farther in the dust than Ubuntu), while Mint is an Ubuntu derivative (that lags about 6 months behind Ubuntu). 

It may be interesting to determine if proprietary build systems are worth considering, such as Windows and Mac... do we even want to consider build systems on mobile devices? They would be slow, but I run my laptop overnight when doing gcc-testing on a VM...

Thanks,
Cynthia Rempel

________________________________________
From: rtems-devel-bounces at rtems.org [rtems-devel-bounces at rtems.org] on behalf of Chris Johns [chrisj at rtems.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:38 PM
To: rtems-devel at rtems.org
Subject: Re: Building and Testing a Canadian Cross-Compiler

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Yes, definitely ... The autotool generated sources (e.g. Makefile.in,
> config.h etc.) definitely belong into git.

This topic has been discuss on the list and it was decided these should
not be in git. Lets please not rehash an old discussion that was clearly
resolved.

> However, when having done so, the patches were immediately reverted and
> was virtually shot down - These incidents actually are the reason for my
> current deep dissatisfation with certain people around here.

It is unfortunate autoconf and automake is causing this. Given the
problems building these specific tools and the fact we cannot upgrade to
the latest automake, maybe after 4.11 is released we move to RTEMS 5.0
and a new build system that removes this as a problem.

Chris
_______________________________________________
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel at rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel