Hi, I received a reply from STM32 about the licensing issues. They requested more specific information about the "vendor device restrictions" for the HAL code. The issue is here: https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STM32CubeH7/issues/139 Can anyone provide more information about this (maybe even directly in the issue) ? I can forward it to them as well. Thanks a lot in advance!
Kind Regards Robin On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 02:45, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 28/4/21 2:58 am, Robin Müller wrote: > > Okay, I can understand that you'd like to have one build system only. We > had the > > same issue with a former Makefile build system and the new CMake system > and > > decided to make the former system obsolete> because maintaining both of > them would be too much work > For RTEMS what we use has been selected for a range of important reasons > and the > rtems-central repo and the qual work highlights the importance of those > decisions. Waf is a python framework for building software and in > rtems.git our > build system support is written in a clearly defined portable language with > power helper libraries. We can run code formatters on our build system, > have > unit tests and there is even source level debuggers. We treat the build > system > like any other piece of code we have. > > > First thing I can do is that I split up the patch and extract the CMake > > specific files. Concerning a clean solution to allow users to use CMake > without > > introducing files like CMakeLists.txt, > > I am not sure right now. Extracting the information required by CMake > would > > again require scripts to export source files and include paths. > > The simplest solution would still be a CMakeLists.txt file in the root > here > > which simply sets source files and include paths in the parent scope. > > which would again be another form of maintenance burden because it still > needs > > to figure out which port sources to add etc. > > What about scons, meson, or a plain Makefile for those who just want to use > make, then there is GNU make and BSD make, the list is large? Do we open > the > repo up so all build systems are welcome? I think we would have to so we > are not > picking favourites. > > Who tests these build system files when the package is released? As the > person > who releases RTEMS I do not have the time or capability to do this. > > > The rtems-cmake support is able to live without CMakeLists.txt files in > RTEMS > > because the BSP is already compiled at that point. Doing something > similar > > would require a similar process like done in the BSP where rtems-lwip is > > compiled as a static library for a specific BSP, > > installed somewhere and then an application can link against it while > also > > including the headers. > > I welcome the idea of rtems-cmake to grow a community of those using cmake > to > build RTEMS applications. It is great to see this happening. > > > For the RTEMS BSP this is done through provided PKG Config files. It > just seems > > like a lot of effort for a comparatively small library. > > Maybe someone has a better idea? > > I do not have a better solution than PKG config. Most build systems provide > support so it should be something that can be accommodated. > > > I am also not sure if users who are used to CMake would not just do the > same > > thing I did if there are no CMakeLists.txt files present and the > > library/repository is simple enough: > > I would discourage this and maybe not for the reasons you may be thinking > of. > The repo is new and is it is exciting there is work happening on it but in > time > it will become stable and it will be released with RTEMS and this puts it > in the > same configuration management basket as the BSP (kernel) and tools. The > RSB can > build it in a controlled way with reports and you just access it like the > BSP. > > > Add those themselves in the project root or throughout the repository > fork > > structure. But it's your call of course. Maybe some more (user) opinions > would > > help as well. > > I see rtems-cmake providing that role, thank you for it. We have learnt > the hard > way over a few decades to be mindful when adding these things. Strong > portable > eco-system level interfaces are our focus. > > Chris >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
