On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Cudmore, Alan P. (GSFC-5820) < alan.p.cudm...@nasa.gov> wrote:
> I like the idea, but to me it would be confusing to have bsp and bspkit at > the top level, each having nearly the same directories. (but certainly less > confusing than before) > > At the risk of introducing more work, would it make sense to have bspkit > with inc and src subdirectories? > Yeah. I forgot to mention that we would have to address that. Having a directory that is "pure installed .h" files is desirable and we would have to address having two similarly named directories. --joel > > > Alan > > > > > > *From: *devel <devel-boun...@rtems.org> on behalf of Joel Sherrill < > j...@rtems.org> > *Reply-To: *"j...@rtems.org" <j...@rtems.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 3:39 PM > *To: *"rtems-de...@rtems.org" <devel@rtems.org> > *Subject: *RFC: Move libbsp/libchip to top of tree > > > > Hi > > > > I thought one of the long term goals was to move libbsp to the top of > > the tree as bspkit/. Having source nearer the top of the tree and not > > reflecting the historical existence of c/ and ada/ versions of RTEMS > > was discussed for waf. > > > > I would think with all the work Sebastian has done, we should consider > > doing this now. One of the rationales was to reduce the differences between > > the build systems as we switch. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -joel >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
