Rtems 4.9: Error: Requires: libgmp.so.3()(64bit)

[Chris Johns]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/16/2013 02:48 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Ralf your perspective is from that of a tool packager.
>
> No. A product (here: RTEMS-4.9) which hasn't received bug fixes/back
> ports of despite there are known bugs, is dead.

I do not think anyone is suggesting you start a new development with 
RTEMS 4.9. This is about long term maintenance of systems that are using 
RTEMS 4.9.

>
> Also, the packages, the rtems-4.9 toolchains are based on have been
> discontinued upstream long time ago, read: they are dead.
>

I am not sure what you mean by "the packages". If this is some host 
operating system package then I do not agree with the linking of an 
RTEMS release to the life cycle of host operating systems. If this is 
referencing the various parts used in a tool set then it is fine to have 
these fixed.

>
>> It may no longer be of interest to you and not worth your trouble but
>> it isn't dead. This is a case where building one's own tools from
>> source is a viable option.
> No.
>
> It's one of the cases, where people who already are using it, need to
> fall back to a stand-alone long term inhouse support strategy.

This is often not a viable solution due to verification and validation 
procedures. Switching support strategies mid-life cycle may require 
systems being re-certified and that can be very costly and not feasible 
in a number of cases. Experienced engineers in this field understand 
this and often build the cost of having everything "in-house" from the 
start. In my view this comes down to building from source in a known 
repeatable manner using a procedure that is easy to audit and trace.

I see a role the RTEMS Project can take in this process by providing a 
way to build tools from source. The project can offer a number of ways 
to provide tools. RTEMS users can select the tools path they wish to 
follow based on their needs.

>
>> There may be future 4.9 releases.
> This would seem unreasonable to me. Just announce it "discontinued and
> dead", be done with it, and concentrate on the new versions.

This is a view I do not support and I do not see the RTEMS Project 
supporting either. I know Joel does not support this view.

>
>  > But the number of hosts with prebuilt tools is in decline.
> You are missing the point: The world is moving on.
>

Not everyone is able to view the world this way. When you enter a major 
development with a long life time you know, expect and hope the world 
moves on, how-ever you also know in time your new development will be 
left behind. Good engineering practice requires you do what you can to 
aid and insulate the development environment from changes that may appear.

> The older toolchains gradually are becoming unbuildable on modern OSes.
> They fail to build, because newer tools reveal and abort upon bugs
> latented bugs, they fail to build because modern tools behave
> differently and they fail to build because OSes are changing in general.

Yes this happens and sometimes patches are needed to get an older tool 
chain to build on a newer operating system. The results of the changes 
can be evaluated and if code generation is effected choices can be made 
on how to resolve it. The worst case situation is needing to purchasing 
engineering time from a compiler expert or company to provide a patch. 
This is the power of open source and maintaining control of building 
from source. RTEMS users have the freedom to do this.

Chris