On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Hesham ALMatary <heshamelmat...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: >> On 1/05/2015 7:31 am, Hesham ALMatary wrote: >>> +%source set binutils >>> https://github.com/adapteva/epiphany-binutils-gdb/archive/epiphany-binutils-2.23-software-cache.zip >>> +%source set gcc >>> https://github.com/adapteva/epiphany-gcc/archive/epiphany-gcc-4.9.zip >>> +%source set gdb >>> https://github.com/adapteva/epiphany-binutils-gdb/archive/epiphany-gdb-7.8.zip >> >> Are these versions set or are they moving as the github repo moves ? >> > They are usually changing and modified, fixing bugs, add features, > etc. My pull requests got merged to these branches. That's why I think > hashes won't be practical. > Would it be better to pull the git repo itself to a certain commit then? For building tools we aim to have a reliable, reproducible tool set. Dealing with "moving targets" makes it harder to support.
> About the error you got, I tested the patch and it's building fine on > my Fedora OS. I'll have to clone another vanilla RSB repo, apply the > patch, and test again. >> The reason I ask is no hashes are included and a warning is being generated. >> >> Chris > > > > -- > Hesham > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
