Too many tool versions, all different
Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com
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 188.8.131.52,
>>> including all source for development.
>>> 1. The tool versions in ftp://ftp.rtems.com/pub/rtems/184.108.40.206/
>>> TOOLVERSIONS don't match the tool versions in FTP://ftp.rtems.com/
>>> 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.
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel at OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
More information about the users