Waf Build System Status in RTEMS?

[Joel Sherrill]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:50 PM Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:

> On 21/2/20 11:11 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> > On 21/02/2020 12:26, Hesham Almatary wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 11:07, Sebastian Huber
> >> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>  wrote:
> >>> Hello Hesham,
> >>>
> >>> On 20/02/2020 16:40, Hesham Almatary wrote:
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> Are there any progress updates to the Waf build system integration in
> RTEMS?
> >>>>
> >>>> I have pulled [1] and it seems like it hasn't got many updates since
> >>>> December. I wonder what's still remaining/blocking to merge it, or at
> >>>> least push it as a development branch (without re-writing history)
> >>>> that others, including me, can use it and submit patches against.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] git://git.rtems.org/sebh/rtems.git
> >>> technically, the new build system is ready for integration into the
> >>> master branch. I would need about one day to rebase and test it before
> >>> the push. The integration is currently blocked since Chris and Joel had
> >>> no time to look at it.
> >>>
> >> Thanks for your input, Sebastian. Is there a recommended branch I
> >> should be based on? I noticed there's "build" and "build-next".
> >
> > The "build" branch contains the state of the first review. I updated
> > "build-next" a couple of times to integrate the changes on the RTEMS
> master.
> >
> >> Do you intend to re-write git history in either?
> >
> > Yes, when I started with the build system work I didn't expect a more
> than two
> > months review period.
>
> I have discussed this merge with Joel. We have decided to release RTEMS 5
> before
> we merge a new build system. A release with parallel build systems is
> confusing
> and distracting.
>

We discussed this multiple times over the years and planned a final release
with the autoconf build system. We already did more motion toward a new
build system with file movement and reorganisation. I'm not saying that
doing that was bad and it is good for comparing old and new build systems
but we need a release. It is long overdue.

Also I have had multiple emails with people not wanting to base an
application on a git version. This pushes them to 4.11 for SMP which I
don't think we want. And the master is better on multiple counts than 4.11.


> I think we are close to a release if master can stay stable. The milestone
> ticket page ...
>
>  https://devel.rtems.org/milestone/5.1
>
> ... shows 43 in progress and 2 closed. Help with the tickets will help
> progress
> things.
>

As will testing and fixing what's reported.

Jeff is setting up some CIT machinery for RTEMS testing. I have him
focusing on the snapshots first.

>
> I am working on moving the libbsd release to the 5-freebsd-12 branch and
> the
> side effects that causes. I will need reports of a libbsd release snapshort
> running on ...
>
>  beagleboneblack, imx7, xilinx_zynq_zedboard, qoriq_e500
>
> I can do this for the beagleboneblack and xilinx_zynq_zedboard.
>
> Finally there is the FDT file managements, I would like a resolution on a
> suitable path to get FDT files into a release and at least one BSP to
> support
> this. I have selected the BeagleBone Black because I have one to test on.
>

This seems to be more of a pain in the ass than finding a good qemu
version. We need to find a way to handle this.

I repeat.. we need a release. Kids, grandkids ...

>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20200224/9d9a2de2/attachment.html>