On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:16 PM Eshan Dhawan <eshandhawa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Apologies for the late reply. > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:27 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:55 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:50 AM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:30 AM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:33 PM Eshan Dhawan <eshandhawa...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > Hello Everyone, >>> >> > I wanted to take Packaging Micro Python up as GSOC project this summer >>> >> > and the project will also include packaging LUA and picoC >>> >> > The ticket for Micro Python : https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4349 >>> >> > What would be the complete Scope of the project? >>> >> > And what would be a good starting point? >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> Well, I guess Joel must have described the task, so I'll leave it to >>> >> him to fill in some more details. >>> >> >>> >> Adding RSB packages may be not sufficient coding work for GSoC. It is >>> >> important in the proposal to identify what would be the coding >>> >> activities involved in this project. For example, we know from >>> >> experience that Lua can just be built from some minor tailoring of its >>> >> Makefile, so the package is very straightforward. However, the >>> >> projects you mention are scripting environments, so maybe creating a >>> >> framework in RTEMS for a "shell/intepreter" that can be built as an >>> >> add-on by RSB would be a proper way to scope this effort > > Packaging might not be a lot of coding part but adding its documentation and > its example would be a very iterative and time consuming process.
Remember that code is what counts, while we expect the other stuff to come along too, you don't want to be doing 90% doco and 10% code. Just keep it in mind. >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > I agree that Lua and Micropython should build easy but I had more >>> > in mind. >>> > >>> > The full project was language stacks for RTEMS with a better user >>> > experience for Micropython, Lua, Tcl, etc although I am not sure what >>> > etc would entail. I am not sure all three can be completed in the new >>> > GSoC timeframe. All would follow the same pattern: > > Etc can be managed while framing the proposal according to how time is being > managed. >>> >>> > >>> > + RSB package offering a reasonable default and access to configuration >>> > + Examples including at least bare embedded, use of custom commands, >>> > and integrating with RTEMS shell commands Perhaps interactive use with >>> > command line history and editing integrated if we have that as a library >>> > now. >>> > + Documentation specific to RTEMS and the examples >>> > >>> > I imagined completely parallel kits for each embedded language we wanted >>> > to support. >>> > >>> > Does that help? Should he plan on Micropython and Lua? >>> > >>> >>> Sure. Lua should be easy way to get started and develop the >>> framework/infrastructure side in Phase 1. Phase 2 could be extension >>> to micropython / other scripting languages. > > Since all the languages will have a similar pattern complex work can be put > in phase 2. > From my past experience, it is the part when most work is done :) True, but for repeat students, we do expect a bit more acceleration in the first phase. Usually, we want to see code merged in phase 1 by repeat students. Just a reminder that the bar is higher :) >> >> >> OK. >>> >>> >>> I'm not sure about the RSB design of things, and whether they should >>> be parallel or capable of integration. Would anyone want to use >>> multiple interpreters in the same application? If so, they should >>> build together to avoid conflicts. If not, parallel is fine. > > building them can be set to build flags, > but there still needs to be a way if we want to build the package other than > the default way. > (any ideas on how to do that ) >> >> >> I don't see any reason on our side why that shouldn't work but we >> can't guarantee they don't have symbol conflicts. And I'm not sure >> it would make much sense to integrate both at the same time. >> >> I'd think you could install both but we'd focus on only using one >> at a time. >> >> --joel >>> >>> >>> > --joel >>> > >>> >> >>> >> > Thanks >>> >> > - Eshan >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > 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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel