[PATCH] [RSB] Add support for building Epiphany tools
heshamelmatary at gmail.com
Sun May 3 14:10:50 UTC 2015
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Gedare Bloom <gedare at gwu.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Hesham ALMatary
> <heshamelmatary at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
>>> On 1/05/2015 7:31 am, Hesham ALMatary wrote:
>>>> +%source set binutils https://github.com/adapteva/epiphany-binutils-gdb/archive/epiphany-binutils-2.23-software-cache.zip
>>>> +%source set gcc https://github.com/adapteva/epiphany-gcc/archive/epiphany-gcc-4.9.zip
>>>> +%source set gdb https://github.com/adapteva/epiphany-binutils-gdb/archive/epiphany-gdb-7.8.zip
>>> Are these versions set or are they moving as the github repo moves ?
>> They are usually changing and modified, fixing bugs, add features,
>> etc. My pull requests got merged to these branches. That's why I think
>> hashes won't be practical.
> Would it be better to pull the git repo itself to a certain commit
> then? For building tools we aim to have a reliable, reproducible tool
> set. Dealing with "moving targets" makes it harder to support.
That's possible. The problem is that the current RSB doesn't support
cloning from GitHub URLs like  or even .  produce "malforned
URL (no protocol prefix)", and  assumes that it's a .tar file, and
doesn't even clone it.
 git at github.com:adapteva/epiphany-binutils-gdb.git
>> About the error you got, I tested the patch and it's building fine on
>> my Fedora OS. I'll have to clone another vanilla RSB repo, apply the
>> patch, and test again.
>>> The reason I ask is no hashes are included and a warning is being generated.
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at rtems.org
More information about the devel