Hello, I agree with Sebastien. There is no problem to solve here but potential for massive breakage and extra burden on companies using NuttX to develop real products.
Actual NuttX users all have their own build and CI verify infrastructure accustomed to current NuttX build system and doing this causes lots of work for little or no rewards. Just maintaining dozens of customer project external board files in dozens of git repositories and dealing with breaking changes between nuttx and apps repositories with custom applications and boards is enough work. Best Regards, Juha ________________________________ From: Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 4:38 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <dev@nuttx.apache.org> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Migrate the build system to CMake 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fincubator-nuttx%2Fpull%2F3704&data=04%7C01%7Cjuha.niskanen%40haltian.com%7C8f1a6fc871d44899bc6308d92b4be967%7C2f7c629267f24cc582be5d187e289ab2%7C1%7C0%7C637588427316160451%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=WLeZN5VF3Ocr89oqSQxiDRy%2F7OYOU3btIPTimKqXhGI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fincubator-nuttx%2Fissues%2F3455&data=04%7C01%7Cjuha.niskanen%40haltian.com%7C8f1a6fc871d44899bc6308d92b4be967%7C2f7c629267f24cc582be5d187e289ab2%7C1%7C0%7C637588427316160451%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=eorBeLu4%2BqCiwA%2BTTRTFnwwVqB1v9iifpzEZwPfbJ74%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>
