On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 4:50 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 21/2/20 11:11 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 21/02/2020 12:26, Hesham Almatary wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 11:07, Sebastian Huber > >> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > >>> Hello Hesham, > >>> > >>> On 20/02/2020 16:40, Hesham Almatary wrote: > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> Are there any progress updates to the Waf build system integration in > RTEMS? > >>>> > >>>> I have pulled [1] and it seems like it hasn't got many updates since > >>>> December. I wonder what's still remaining/blocking to merge it, or at > >>>> least push it as a development branch (without re-writing history) > >>>> that others, including me, can use it and submit patches against. > >>>> > >>>> [1] git://git.rtems.org/sebh/rtems.git > >>> technically, the new build system is ready for integration into the > >>> master branch. I would need about one day to rebase and test it before > >>> the push. The integration is currently blocked since Chris and Joel had > >>> no time to look at it. > >>> > >> Thanks for your input, Sebastian. Is there a recommended branch I > >> should be based on? I noticed there's "build" and "build-next". > > > > The "build" branch contains the state of the first review. I updated > > "build-next" a couple of times to integrate the changes on the RTEMS > master. > > > >> Do you intend to re-write git history in either? > > > > Yes, when I started with the build system work I didn't expect a more > than two > > months review period. > > I have discussed this merge with Joel. We have decided to release RTEMS 5 > before > we merge a new build system. A release with parallel build systems is > confusing > and distracting. >
We discussed this multiple times over the years and planned a final release with the autoconf build system. We already did more motion toward a new build system with file movement and reorganisation. I'm not saying that doing that was bad and it is good for comparing old and new build systems but we need a release. It is long overdue. Also I have had multiple emails with people not wanting to base an application on a git version. This pushes them to 4.11 for SMP which I don't think we want. And the master is better on multiple counts than 4.11. > I think we are close to a release if master can stay stable. The milestone > ticket page ... > > https://devel.rtems.org/milestone/5.1 > > ... shows 43 in progress and 2 closed. Help with the tickets will help > progress > things. > As will testing and fixing what's reported. Jeff is setting up some CIT machinery for RTEMS testing. I have him focusing on the snapshots first. > > I am working on moving the libbsd release to the 5-freebsd-12 branch and > the > side effects that causes. I will need reports of a libbsd release snapshort > running on ... > > beagleboneblack, imx7, xilinx_zynq_zedboard, qoriq_e500 > > I can do this for the beagleboneblack and xilinx_zynq_zedboard. > > Finally there is the FDT file managements, I would like a resolution on a > suitable path to get FDT files into a release and at least one BSP to > support > this. I have selected the BeagleBone Black because I have one to test on. > This seems to be more of a pain in the ass than finding a good qemu version. We need to find a way to handle this. I repeat.. we need a release. Kids, grandkids ... > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > 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
