RTEMS Muilti-I/O lib is missing

[Christian Mauderer]

On 19/08/2019 00:35, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 18/8/19 3:53 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 8:43 PM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org
>> <mailto:chrisj at rtems.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 17/8/19 7:02 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>     > FWIW the repo is git clone git://git.rtems.org/multiio.git
>>     <http://git.rtems.org/multiio.git>
>>     >
>>     > More below
>>     >
>>     > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:20 PM Wendell Silva <silvawp at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:silvawp at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     >>
>>     >> Well, I'm a non-OAR user with at least one customer 100% satisfied with
>>     multi-io lib.
>>     >>
>>     >> Suppose I'm going to championize it, how do I do to get started?
>>     >
>>     > I'm glad you are happy with it. I was happy with it on the robotic project
>>     > I did with it.
>>
>>     This repo could be added to the RSB as a package. It has been converted to
>>     rtems_waf however it would be good to have the support changed from the files
>>     being in the multiio repo to a submodule referring to the rtems_waf repo.
>>
>>     Can the package be built for all BSPs?
>>
>>     It would need to be documented. I was considering adding a Packages chapter to
>>     the User Manual and it could be a section under that chapter.
>>
>>
>> Personally, I think there are only two things of long-term value in it. A few
>> shell commands and an interface to access discretes and analogs. 
>>
>> If the interface is just considered a shim layer that an application can
>> implement, then it is independent of any bsp. A system with multiple IO cards is
>> abstracted through this by the system integrator.
>>
>> Is it worth being independent then?
>>
>> The two drivers in there now are PC-104 so only available to pc386 and possibly
>> not even compatible with anything you can buy now. One was based on a single
>> chip solution so may be available in later incarnations and for other buses. No
>> idea though.
>>
>> I don't mind treating it as a small package either. If we want to show how one
>> should be done, this is small enough to be an example.
> 
> I do not know which is better, a common packages repo or separate repos for each
> package. I am tending to lean to a packages repo where we can collect fragment
> of code like this.
> 
> Chris

Hello Chris,

I had some bad experience with collection repos in the past (private and
at work). They tend to become big and contain a lot of unrelated stuff.
Even if you only want a small part, you always have to clone everything.
And some packages might grow with time and then it's hard to split the
repo up.

I assume the main problem with lot's of repos is that it's slightly
confusing to find anything? If that's the only reason maybe it would be
better to add a prefix or put packages into a sub-folder. Something like
'rtems-packages/multiio' in this case.

What would be the advantages of one collection repo?

PS: Maybe we should have created the maintainer playgrounds more as
'user/<name>', 'user-<name>' or 'private/<name>' or similar.

Best regards

Christian