I like the cmake idea but we should also consider that cmake will have implications on all projects that use the NuttX as a base for the SDK or custom projects.
All those projects are using the old make system and such a change will have a huge impact for them. Regards Alin -----Original Message----- From: Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> Sent: den 9 juni 2021 15:57 To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake Opponents should raise their voice. They are part of this "community" and have the ability to weight in this decision. Sebastien Le 09/06/2021 à 15:46, Gregory Nutt a écrit : > I think that there a lot of people like myself who are opposed to the > CMake change but are remain silent to let the community make the > decision. I suspect that the advocates of CMake are having a larger > voice in the decision. > > On 6/9/2021 7:38 AM, Sebastien Lorquet wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I believe in a stong principle, applied successfully numerous time in >> my embedded development company: >> >> >> It it's not broken, dont fix it. >> >> >> That applies precisely to this change. >> >> The build system we have have the following characteristics >> >> -it works for its intended purposes >> >> -it is pretty complex >> >> -ALL USERS have become used to it >> >> >> Changing it >> >> - will bring a lot of new bugs >> >> - along with the annoying feeling that these bugs were not necessary >> in the first place >> >> - No one will understand the build system anymore >> >> - since makefiles are now generated, we rely on yet another external >> tool with bugs in itself, and its idiosyncrasies and workarounds. >> >> >> Moreover: >> >> -the doc about nuttx is not hosted by the nuttx project, so 99 % of >> the nuttx documentation will become fully obsolete overnight. >> >> >> Gratuitous changes are a hell, they destroy efficiency. >> >> They tend to appear more frequently in open source projects, because >> anyone can bring it change without a single damn given to customer >> since the code has no warranty of fitness of etc etc open source >> legalese. >> >> >> If it was me, I would not do this change. If I had to take a decision >> about something similar in my company, it would be a strong no. >> >> >> Sebastien >> >> >> Le 09/06/2021 à 14:57, Matias N. a écrit : >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> this thread has received little engagement from the community in >>> general, for a change with such impact on daily use of NuttX for >>> everyone. >>> >>> While there was positive feedback on GH and a few people have >>> expressed more interest, not much has really happened. Meanwhile, >>> the backlog of changes that would need to be backported continues to >>> increase. >>> >>> At the same time, I see many PRs addressing subtle issues with >>> current build system, which are mostly already solved with the >>> migration to CMake. So there's continued effort in maintaining the >>> current system which could be in part dedicated to the migration to >>> a better system. >>> >>> I have offered technical guidance on testing and extending to other >>> platforms and also to add base support for other arch's so that the >>> focus can be put mostly at the board level and on test and >>> validation on different platforms and target hardware. However, >>> after having worked on this for more than a month I feel this is not >>> really picking up the interest it requires for proper adoption by >>> the community. >>> >>> Maybe the proper approach would be to call on a vote (*) for this >>> feature to have explicit support from the community and ensure >>> involvement from others than me to move forward. >>> Otherwise, or if the vote does not pass, I will not be pushing >>> forward with this. >>> >>> (*) As a commiter (non-PPMC member), I'm not sure if I can formally >>> call on a vote and what the exact procedure is, but maybe other PPMC >>> member can do so. >>> >>> Best, >>> Matias >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, at 15:05, Nathan Hartman wrote: >>>> I am interested and I'll try to help with boards I can test. It >>>> will take a few days to get around to it because this has been a >>>> busy month, but I'm catching up. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Nathan >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:25 AM Alan Carvalho de Assis >>>> <acas...@gmail.com <mailto:acassis%40gmail.com>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think we can divide the effort to port all the boards to the new >>>>> CMake. >>>>> >>>>> I can start take care of ESP32, ESP32-C3 and ESP32-S2. >>>>> >>>>> Let see if we get more people involved in this effort. >>>>> >>>>> BR, >>>>> >>>>> Alan >>>>> >>>>> On 6/1/21, Matias N. <mat...@imap.cc <mailto:matias%40imap.cc>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> just wanted to add that until this is ready, the gap between >>>>>> master and >>>>> the >>>>>> branch >>>>>> widens with every merged PR and this increases the backporting >>>>>> effort. >>>>>> I'm willing to do most of the remaining work but as I mentioned I >>>>>> cannot possibly test everything so help is needed. >>>>>> I'd really like your feedback on this before I continue and >>>>>> ensure the effort will not go to waste. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Matias >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, May 29, 2021, at 14:06, Matias N. wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> for anyone not following the relevant PR, please have a look at >>>>>>> the current state here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/incubator- >>>>>>> nuttx/pull/3704__;!!JmoZiZGBv3RvKRSx!tcmt44RO4Rbmk83X7adyRGP8Xsn >>>>>>> fjZ0KpZeVi47Rt1jvUe3UNJT8qcnIRbMl5wvAfA$ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is now at a point where it can be tested by others. It >>>>>>> would be >>>>> very >>>>>>> good to get some >>>>>>> help testing what I got so far (sim and stm32f4discovery, both >>>>>>> on Linux and mac), by running examples and test. There are some >>>>>>> brief instructions at the end of the >>>>> PR >>>>>>> description for building. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other than that, I can continue porting other arch's and boards >>>>>>> with the help of CI but it would be best if others with more >>>>>>> boards could help testing (and ideally with >>>>> some >>>>>>> PRs, as the hard part >>>>>>> is mostly done) those as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, note that this is a PR against a branch so we could >>>>>>> eventually >>>>> merge >>>>>>> it before adding support >>>>>>> for other arch/boards. And finally, I will provide documentation >>>>>>> to the new build system in a separate PR at some point, which I >>>>>>> hope will ease the transition and help reviewing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Matias >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021, at 18:43, Xiang Xiao wrote: >>>>>>>> A new issue is opened recently to address this topic: >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/incubator >>>>>>>> -nuttx/issues/3455__;!!JmoZiZGBv3RvKRSx!tcmt44RO4Rbmk83X7adyRGP >>>>>>>> 8XsnfjZ0KpZeVi47Rt1jvUe3UNJT8qcnIRbNvEaLWow$ >>>>>>>> This proposal has the depth of the impact in our daily working, >>>>>>>> so it's very important to get the feedback from the community >>>>>>>> before the real action is taken. >>>>>>>> If you have any concern or suggestion, please reply to this email. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> Xiang >>>>>>>> >
