On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:38 AM Eshan Dhawan <eshandhawa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:34 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:16 PM Eshan Dhawan <eshandhawa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Apologies for the late reply. >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:27 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:55 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:50 AM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:30 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:33 PM Eshan Dhawan >> >>> >> <eshandhawa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Hello Everyone, >> >>> >> > I wanted to take Packaging Micro Python up as GSOC project this >> >>> >> > summer and the project will also include packaging LUA and picoC >> >>> >> > The ticket for Micro Python : https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4349 >> >>> >> > What would be the complete Scope of the project? >> >>> >> > And what would be a good starting point? >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Well, I guess Joel must have described the task, so I'll leave it to >> >>> >> him to fill in some more details. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Adding RSB packages may be not sufficient coding work for GSoC. It is >> >>> >> important in the proposal to identify what would be the coding >> >>> >> activities involved in this project. For example, we know from >> >>> >> experience that Lua can just be built from some minor tailoring of its >> >>> >> Makefile, so the package is very straightforward. However, the >> >>> >> projects you mention are scripting environments, so maybe creating a >> >>> >> framework in RTEMS for a "shell/intepreter" that can be built as an >> >>> >> add-on by RSB would be a proper way to scope this effort >> > >> > Packaging might not be a lot of coding part but adding its documentation >> > and its example would be a very iterative and time consuming process. >> >> Remember that code is what counts, while we expect the other stuff to >> come along too, you don't want to be doing 90% doco and 10% code. Just >> keep it in mind. > > What would be a good inclusion to this project ? > I was thinking long double support since I worked on porting POSIX functions > I might find it easier. > But it might interfere with matt's project if I understand that project > correctly.
Right, please don't include that. You'll want to think/talk through (with Joel, maybe) what could be good code contributions. If the RSB packaging is fairly minimal, then creating a suite of examples might be one way to increase the SLOC contributions. I also think there is merit to the idea of creating a "plug-in" way to add shells to RTEMS. Maybe even refactoring our current shell out to a add-on package then. Just a thought. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > I agree that Lua and Micropython should build easy but I had more >> >>> > in mind. >> >>> > >> >>> > The full project was language stacks for RTEMS with a better user >> >>> > experience for Micropython, Lua, Tcl, etc although I am not sure what >> >>> > etc would entail. I am not sure all three can be completed in the new >> >>> > GSoC timeframe. All would follow the same pattern: >> > >> > Etc can be managed while framing the proposal according to how time is >> > being managed. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > + RSB package offering a reasonable default and access to configuration >> >>> > + Examples including at least bare embedded, use of custom commands, >> >>> > and integrating with RTEMS shell commands Perhaps interactive use with >> >>> > command line history and editing integrated if we have that as a >> >>> > library now. >> >>> > + Documentation specific to RTEMS and the examples >> >>> > >> >>> > I imagined completely parallel kits for each embedded language we >> >>> > wanted >> >>> > to support. >> >>> > >> >>> > Does that help? Should he plan on Micropython and Lua? >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> Sure. Lua should be easy way to get started and develop the >> >>> framework/infrastructure side in Phase 1. Phase 2 could be extension >> >>> to micropython / other scripting languages. >> > >> > Since all the languages will have a similar pattern complex work can be >> > put in phase 2. >> > From my past experience, it is the part when most work is done :) >> >> True, but for repeat students, we do expect a bit more acceleration in >> the first phase. Usually, we want to see code merged in phase 1 by >> repeat students. Just a reminder that the bar is higher :) > > :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> OK. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I'm not sure about the RSB design of things, and whether they should >> >>> be parallel or capable of integration. Would anyone want to use >> >>> multiple interpreters in the same application? If so, they should >> >>> build together to avoid conflicts. If not, parallel is fine. >> > >> > building them can be set to build flags, >> > but there still needs to be a way if we want to build the package other >> > than the default way. >> > (any ideas on how to do that ) >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't see any reason on our side why that shouldn't work but we >> >> can't guarantee they don't have symbol conflicts. And I'm not sure >> >> it would make much sense to integrate both at the same time. >> >> >> >> I'd think you could install both but we'd focus on only using one >> >> at a time. >> >> >> >> --joel >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > --joel >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Thanks >> >>> >> > - Eshan >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >>> >> > 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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
