Trying to be fair, (and leaving my personal preference aside). My machine takes less than 6 seconds to perform a clean build (with ccache).
If a windows machine takes "minutes", then maybe the build system can be considered broken... On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 23:47 TimH <t...@jti.uk.com.invalid> wrote: > My view on this...bit of a ramble. > > I'm new to Nuttx, and have a new/custom board I'm porting it to. Nuttx > didn't play nicely/easily with either Windows or MAC for me and I > eventually went to Linux; and have no regrets as life is so much easier > as result. A full build takes no more than 10seconds compared to minutes > using WSL and a complete fail on mac. > > The current makefile system is a bit clunky, but once you understand it > - and it really doesn't take long to do so - it works fine and is > similar to the methodology I've used for years and years and years. > > I have no experience of Cmake so my initial reaction is "oh no, just got > to grips with all of this, why would I want to jump ship to some other > way of doing it". > > If Cmake could have shortened the process of getting a new board ported > and NuttX running, and made the whole experience better/easier/quicker > then it would have been a good thing I would think. > > But is the point, perhaps, that if you have a project/build that's > working for a given board there is little incentive to rework your > enironment just to suit a new methodology? > > I think that may point towards concentrating effort on new and/or very > popular boards, but leave others alone (for now). I suspect - for > example - that I am one of very few using sama5d2, given the number of > errors I've found (!), so is it really worth the effort to change that > arch to use Cmake? > > It may be though! But, as I said, I don't know Cmake so it's very very > difficult to give a meaningful opinion. > > My final thought is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Is the current > system actually broken? > > > >
