On 16/11/2017 14:36, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Chris Johns <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I have been considering the default of building the RTEMS kernel when > building > the tools as a result of what you have been reporting so thank you for > taking > the time to do this. > > In theory it is a good idea however some archs have too many BSP and the > time > and resources it consumes makes this problematic. It may be simpler to > not build > the RTEMS kernel and to make sure the documentation and Quick Start in the > release details how to build the kernel. This way the tools get built and > installed as a step and then the kernel can be built as a second step. At > the > moment any failure means no tools and kernel and that is not great or user > friendly. > > I think building RTEMS by default is a bad idea for a few reasons. > > + First, you are building everything which takes a long time and a lot of disk > space. > It is common to run out of disk space while building BSPs you don't care > about. > I am teaching a class this week and at least one person ran during the RSB > build > and another forgot --enable-rtemsbsp and ran out building RTEMS. It also took > a > long time. > > + Second, it may not be the configuration the end user wants even if the BSP > they want is in the list. > > + Finally, if they are going to develop a new or work on an existing custom > BSP, then they are interested in building none of the existing BSPs in the > tree. > > I just don't see the need to build all the BSPs when you build the tools. >
Can you please raise tickets on 4.11 and 5 for this? Chris _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
