Move libbsp/libchip to top of tree

[Joel Sherrill]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Cudmore, Alan P. (GSFC-5820) <
alan.p.cudmore at nasa.gov> wrote:

> I like the idea, but to me it would be confusing to have bsp and bspkit at
> the top level, each having nearly the same directories. (but certainly less
> confusing than before)
>
> At the risk of introducing more work, would it make sense to have bspkit
> with inc and src subdirectories?
>

Yeah. I forgot to mention that we would have to address that. Having a
directory
that is "pure installed .h" files is desirable and we would have to address
having
two similarly named directories.

--joel


>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *devel <devel-bounces at rtems.org> on behalf of Joel Sherrill <
> joel at rtems.org>
> *Reply-To: *"joel at rtems.org" <joel at rtems.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 3:39 PM
> *To: *"rtems-devel at rtems.org" <devel at rtems.org>
> *Subject: *RFC: Move libbsp/libchip to top of tree
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I thought one of the long term goals was to move libbsp to the top of
>
> the tree as bspkit/. Having source nearer the top of the tree and not
>
> reflecting the historical existence of c/ and ada/ versions of RTEMS
>
> was discussed for waf.
>
>
>
> I would think with all the work Sebastian has done, we should consider
>
> doing this now. One of the rationales was to reduce the differences between
>
> the build systems as we switch.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> -joel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20180327/b5277297/attachment-0001.html>