I joined the Issue. Thanks for working on this.
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 11:30 AM Robin Müller <robin.muelle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I posted a reply but I think it did not go through. Will post it now. > > Kind Regards > Robin > > On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 18:31, Robin Müller <robin.muelle...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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
