[PATCH] Upgrade to 5.0.0

[Chris Johns]

On 16/11/17 8:18 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 15/11/17 22:13, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 13/11/2017 18:56, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> There will be no 5.1.X release with X != 0. We have a version scheme change and
>>> not simply a major version number bump. I think is quite good explained in the
>>> GCC development page how it works (Version Numbering Scheme for GCC 5 and Up):
>>>
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
>> I knew there was some discussion about using this model, I was not aware this
>> was the agreed path. I am fine with this approach and support it.
>>
>>> We need something similar in the new engineering guide.
>> Yes. Should the wiki page [1] be updated to make it clear the approach we are
>> taking until we have an engineering doc?
> 
> I updated:
> 
> https://devel.rtems.org/wiki/Developer/Release#RTEMSRelease5SeriesAndHigherNumbering
> 

Nice and thank you.

> 
>>
>>> What do you mean with separate prefixes? I doubt that you can build a RTEMS 4.1
>>> with the tool chain of RTEMS 4.10 and vice versa.
>> Using the gcc approach changes this and what you say makes sense. In this
>> context I was out by a dot number.
>>
>>> /opt/rtems/5/bin/X-rtems5-gcc
>>> /opt/rtems/6 (maybe with the new build system)
>>> /opt/rtems/7/bin/X-rtems7-gcc
>> I am looking at the parallel install issue (#3083) and unfortunately a rather
>> complex fix to it I am attempting to find the simplest path into the build
>> system and stumbled across this in cpukit/aclocal/rtems-top.m4:
>>
>>   AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT([/opt/rtems-][_RTEMS_API])
>>
>> Does this need to change to:
>>
>>   AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT([/opt/rtems/][_RTEMS_API])
>>
>> ?
> 
> Yes, I think this is more in line with:
> 
> https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/user/installation/prefixes-sandboxing.html#project-sandboxing
> 

I will update this as part of the work I am doing for parallel install
instances, which is a rather unpleasant task.

> 
> In this manual:
> 
> 
> |/bd/rtems/4.11.0/tools|
>    Production prefix for RTEMS 4.11.0 compiler, debuggers and tools.
> |/bd/rtems/4.11.0/bsps|
>    Production prefix for RTEMS 4.11.0 Board Support Packages (BSPs).
> 
> What should be the content of "tools" and "bsps"?
> 

If you are working on a BSP and installing in a prefix to use, for example with
libbsd, keeping the tools and bsp under separate prefixes lets you delete the
bsp tree without needing to rebuild the tools. If you use the same prefix for
the tools and bsp you either need to rebuild both parts or run the risk a stale
file could still be present and effect how things work. There is only an install
and no upgrade for a BSP.

Chris