Drop toolchain support for rtems4.8, rtems4.9 and CentOS5?

[Joel Sherrill]

The crux is the matter is that we host old binaries that will never be updated. That is how it has always been. CentOS 5 has simply reached the point where the pain for Ralf (a volunteer) exceeds what he is willing to put into it for free.

I agree that there are users on old versions. They have not communicated their maintenance requirements to the community and not sponsored any continued maintenance.

Sorry to sound callous but if they place value on CentOS 5 having continued support, it needs to be communicated and be worth the pain. Ralf builds binaries for a wide variety of OSes and distributions. He generally holds on as long as it doesn't cause excessive pain. CentOS 5 has ancient tools and it is difficult to build modern tool versions. Not impossible just work.

--joel



"Oyake, Amalaye (3496)" <amalaye.oyake at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:


Dear RTEMS Maintainers ...

with respect to older toolchains, I would check if older Space missions
are using the older builds. I think that ESA is baselined rtems 4.8 or
some variant thereof ... It would be difficult to do some software
maintenance/update on an older spacecraft if the toolchains needed are
gone.

The thing to note is that Legacy Hardware pretty much does one function
well and stays in use for a long long time ...


On 3/15/13 12:38 PM, "rwas" <rbtwas at gmail.com> wrote:

>Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>  Hi,
>>
>>
>>  * rtems4.8, rtems4.9 (All host OSes): I do not see much use in
>>  keeping these. RTEMS-4.8 and 4.9 and their toolchains haven't seen
>>  any activities for a long time and are de-facto dead.
>>
>>  Keeping the packages, to me only means carrying around historic
>>  ballast of questionable value, I'd rather get rid off, ASAP.
>
>This sort of talk makes me real nervous. Recently, in an attempt to
>reconstruct
>the bsp development for the mvme167, I found myself downloading older
>gdb, gcc,
>and rtems versions. The gdb, and gcc projects apparently see the value
>in archiving
>older versions. IMO there is at least one very valid reason for doing so.
>
>Your attitude seems to not only forget the past, but to eliminate any
>trace of it. I for one
>view it as data, important data. The cost of keeping it on today's very
>inexpensive harddrives
>seems well worth the potential value obtained for end users for things
>like version archeology.
>
>Recently, you removed perfectly good tools from the rtems system for
>opensuse11.3. A version
>of suse I was still using. I can understand dropping maintenance of the
>tools. But why you felt it
>necessary to *burn the books* (so to speak) on perfectly good tools is
>beyond my reasoning.
>
>My project uses 4.9.3 and its tools. My project has suffered many slips
>in schedule and really can't
>afford the down time to convert to 4.10'ism's. When I say the project
>can't afford it, I mean any slips
>put the project at risk of cancellation. That and the ~30jobs that go
>with it.
>
>  It's still not clear to me that 4.10 for the mvme5500 is ready for
>primetime. We have been successfully
>using 4.9.3 for >3yrs. It's not broke, I don't have time to fix it.
>
>If it's a matter of disk space, let me know. I'm sure I can come up with
>a harddrive for the rtems project.
>
>Robert W.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtems-users mailing list
>rtems-users at rtems.org
>http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users


_______________________________________________
rtems-users mailing list
rtems-users at rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users