On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 10:10 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 1:10 AM Christian MAUDERER > <christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > > > Hello Chris, > > > > Am 01.11.22 um 22:08 schrieb Chris Johns: > > > On 2/11/2022 3:25 am, o...@c-mauderer.de wrote:> Is it a good idea to > make it a > > > mandatory attribute? It makes the yaml files > > >> bigger. It will only mean that we have to look for copy and paste > bugs instead > > >> of missing attributes if someone adds a new third party library. > > > > > > Can you avoid having to add the item to all? I am no spec build system > expert > > > (having invested time) and seem to remember needing to hit a lot of > files when > > > adding something ... > > > > > > > https://git.rtems.org/rtems/commit/?id=6f2aa8ad36e3aaffc9fa2cb8c744b04da7339ee2 > > > > > > Chris > > > > The documentation mentions at least some optional attributes in the > > specification files. For example "format" in a build option item or the > > "do-configure" in a build script item: > > > > > https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/eng/req/items.html#build-option-item-type > > > https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/eng/req/items.html#build-script-item-type > > > > But I think the wscript has to take into account that the value might > > not exist. I'm not sure whether it does that for the existing "optional" > > attributes. For example my first guess would be that the "do-configure" > > could throw a KeyError: > > > > https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/wscript#n1127 > > > > def do_configure(self, conf, cic): > > script = self.data["do-configure"] > > if script: > > exec(script) > > > > Usually I would have expected the following code instead: > > > > def do_configure(self, conf, cic): > > try: > > script = self.data["do-configure"] > > except KeyError: > > script = None > > if script: > > exec(script) > > > Thanks for this recommendation and the discussion/example. Indeed, the > plumbing right now in the wscript is not very robust to optional > attributes. For this particular third-party attribute I will take a > stab at making it optional. > > I think the additional metadata we would like to track regarding > third-party sources can be added incrementally or even separately. I > would like to first solve the problem of how to separate third-party > from project-owned sources. Once that is done, then we can discuss > more ways to improve or use this capability. > Are you thinking of a more distinct placement of third party sources in the source tree? like a cpukit/thirdparty/... sub-tree? > > > So I can't clearly answer your question. I would have to try it. But > > regardless whether there are currently such options or not: They > > shouldn't be hard to implement. I just hope that this doesn't break some > > use case. I'll try to remember to ask Sebastian about it next week. > > > Thanks, I will appreciate that feedback and any tricky things to watch out > for. > > > Best regards > > > > Christian > > -- > > -------------------------------------------- > > embedded brains GmbH > > Herr Christian MAUDERER > > Dornierstr. 4 > > 82178 Puchheim > > Germany > > email: christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de > > phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18 > > mobile: +49-176-152 206 08 > > > > Registergericht: Amtsgericht München > > Registernummer: HRB 157899 > > Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler > > Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier: > > https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/ > _______________________________________________ > 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
