STM is not going to fix their Ultimate Liberty License at this time. https://github.com/STMicroelectronics/STM32CubeH7/issues/139#issuecomment-890806010
So, we need to avoid using their example codes. On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 12:16 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > > 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
