On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Gedare Bloom <ged...@gwu.edu> wrote: > 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. > That's possible. The problem is that the current RSB doesn't support cloning from GitHub URLs like [1] or even [2]. [1] produce "malforned URL (no protocol prefix)", and [2] assumes that it's a .tar file, and doesn't even clone it.
[1] g...@github.com:adapteva/epiphany-binutils-gdb.git [2] https://github.com/adapteva/epiphany-binutils-gdb.git >> 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 -- Hesham _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
