Too many tool versions, all different

Joel Sherrill <> joel.sherrill at
Mon Oct 24 20:35:10 UTC 2005

Peter Dufault wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Peter Dufault wrote:
>>> It's really confusing trying to figure out what tools to use.
>>> I'm trying to setup a Solaris 10 system for a client for,  
>>> including all source for development.
>>> 1. The tool versions in  
>>> TOOLVERSIONS don't match the tool versions in FTP:// 
>>> pub/ rtems/SOURCES;
>> Someone reported this last week.  I thought I had fixed this.  What  
>> in particular is missing?
> Maybe they do given that the "-N" doesn't mean the number of patches  
> applied.  automake 1.9.6-0 is missing, though.
>>> 2. pub/solaris/rtems-4.7 has other versions, and is from 1 year  ago  
>>> June, so that's no where to look;
>> Solaris tools have not been built in a while and I do not not when  or 
>> if they will be built again.
> Maybe just remove that directory then?  I doubt an old 4.7 snapshot  
> helps and it confuses things.

Probably not but RTEMS is a packrat project. :)

I don't have any way to do extensive testing on Solaris tools but can 
probably still build them.  They are built canadian cross on a GNU/Linux 

>> ...
>> You will never see 4 patch files to the same source tarball.  The  -4 
>> indicates it is the fourth revision of the RTEMS autoconf 2.59  
>> package.  Very likely -1 did not have any patches.  Revisions -2  and 
>> -3 could have been earlier versions of changes or packaging  mistakes 
>> that resulted in having to not distribute the RPM.
> I think -0 had no patches and -1 one patch.  Maybe either remove old  
> patch files and add a README to say what patch goes to what -N, or  
> always leave them so the number matches?  Right now it's a mixture -  
> some old patches are still there and others must have been removed.

What makes you think old patches have been removed?  Say I was building 
  Peter-1.3-3 and realized something was wrong with the patch, 
packaging., or maybe I was just using the wrong compiler.  To keep from 
accidentally releasing a bad -3 set, I will trash my work and bump the 
version to -4.    A package could get to a fairly high revision count 
with only one or two patch sets if Ralf and I were trying fix spec file 

> Anyway, another difference is that TOOL_VERSIONS says Autoconf 2.59-3  
> and the email says 2.59-4.

The TOOL_VERSIONS is always what was current when that version was cut. 
  It looks like the autoconf RPM has been revved since then.

-4 is on the ftp site and automake 1.9.6-0 is there.

> Peter

Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel at                 On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
    Support Available             (256) 722-9985

More information about the users mailing list