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

[Oyake, Amalaye (3496)]

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