RFC: ATTENTION ALL PORTS/PACKAGES MAINTAINERS!

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC: ATTENTION ALL PORTS/PACKAGES MAINTAINERS!

Peter Johansson-9
Apologies for shouting in the subject, but I believe this is critical
issue for all ports/packages maintainers.

I implore you to read Peter Bigot's post of September 23, 2013
regarding the naming of GCC releases for the MSP430, the summary of
which follows:

> To help reduce confusion, though, I propose the following nomenclature:
>
> * mspgcc refers specifically to the toolchain started by Dmitry Diky and
> Chris Liechti and "finished" by me;
>
> * gcc refers generically to the upstream toolchain GNU C;
>
> * msp430 gcc (or gcc msp430) would refer to the new port of msp430 to the
> upstream toolchain.

The number of different versions of GCC for the MSP430 in the past has
caused no end of confusion, and Red Hat's new version is likely to
continue this trend unless appropriate measures are taken, and taken
soon.  (It could be argued that this confusion is already
happening...)

While it seems clear that Red Hat's version will be the long term
future for GCC for the MSP430, there are many people (myself included)
who will be sticking with Peter's version until such time as Red Hat's
version has been formally released and thoroughly tested.  However,
Red Hat's version will only see broad use (and testing) if it is also
included in packaged formats.

As such, I strongly suggest that all package maintainers include
*both* versions for the foreseeable future.  Unfortunately, it appears
that many distributions already have package names that contradict
Peter's proposed naming scheme.

It is my hope that this thread can be used to sort out this mess and
provide for some package naming standards going forward.

Please discuss.

-p.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable
security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key
security issues and trends.  Skip the complicated setup - simply import
a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Mspgcc-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: ATTENTION ALL PORTS/PACKAGES MAINTAINERS!

Peter Bigot-4
Most mspgcc package names pre-date the conception of RH's implementation by
some number of years.  I agree issuing new packages with a different
toolchain under the same name would be unwise.

A clean distinction is that mspgcc traditionally used msp430-cmd while
msp430 gcc uniformly uses msp430-elf-cmd for all toolchain commands.  If
that distinction were reflected in the package names, it might be very
simple to have parallel installations.

Peter



On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Peter Johansson <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Apologies for shouting in the subject, but I believe this is critical
> issue for all ports/packages maintainers.
>
> I implore you to read Peter Bigot's post of September 23, 2013
> regarding the naming of GCC releases for the MSP430, the summary of
> which follows:
>
> > To help reduce confusion, though, I propose the following nomenclature:
> >
> > * mspgcc refers specifically to the toolchain started by Dmitry Diky and
> > Chris Liechti and "finished" by me;
> >
> > * gcc refers generically to the upstream toolchain GNU C;
> >
> > * msp430 gcc (or gcc msp430) would refer to the new port of msp430 to the
> > upstream toolchain.
>
> The number of different versions of GCC for the MSP430 in the past has
> caused no end of confusion, and Red Hat's new version is likely to
> continue this trend unless appropriate measures are taken, and taken
> soon.  (It could be argued that this confusion is already
> happening...)
>
> While it seems clear that Red Hat's version will be the long term
> future for GCC for the MSP430, there are many people (myself included)
> who will be sticking with Peter's version until such time as Red Hat's
> version has been formally released and thoroughly tested.  However,
> Red Hat's version will only see broad use (and testing) if it is also
> included in packaged formats.
>
> As such, I strongly suggest that all package maintainers include
> *both* versions for the foreseeable future.  Unfortunately, it appears
> that many distributions already have package names that contradict
> Peter's proposed naming scheme.
>
> It is my hope that this thread can be used to sort out this mess and
> provide for some package naming standards going forward.
>
> Please discuss.
>
> -p.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable
> security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key
> security issues and trends.  Skip the complicated setup - simply import
> a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Mspgcc-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable
security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key
security issues and trends.  Skip the complicated setup - simply import
a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Mspgcc-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: ATTENTION ALL PORTS/PACKAGES MAINTAINERS!

DJ Delorie

> A clean distinction is that mspgcc traditionally used msp430-cmd
> while msp430 gcc uniformly uses msp430-elf-cmd for all toolchain
> commands.  If that distinction were reflected in the package names,
> it might be very simple to have parallel installations.

Also, it's useful to have parallel installations as the msp430-elf
"RH" toolchain is ABI compatible with the TI tools, not the mspgcc
tools.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable
security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key
security issues and trends.  Skip the complicated setup - simply import
a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Mspgcc-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users