2008/8/13 Ray Kiddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Maybe it is just me, but some of these things are still confusing. I can > look at all the documentation I can find and I am still not seeing answers > to some of the questions I have. If nobody else has these questions, I > apologize. I'll just answer these for myself in the fullness of time. > However, I doubt that I am the only one who finds some of this to be not > obvious. > I started with the > present > http://www.scratchbox.org/documentation/user/scratchbox-1.0/html/installdoc.html > and added info to the wiki pages > at http://www.scratchbox.org/wiki/ScratchboxInstallation > and http://www.scratchbox.org/wiki/ScratchboxTargetConfiguration. A lot of > that is just going through the motions, though. These steps seem to work, > but I have not seen any information as to why. > Looking at files in the > directory: http://scratchbox.org/download/files/sbox-releases/apophis/tarball/ > scratchbox-core-1.0.6-i386.tar.gz > scratchbox-core-1.0.7-i386.tar.gz > scratchbox-core-1.0.8-i386.tar.gz > scratchbox-core-1.0.9-i386.tar.gz > scratchbox-core-1.0.10-i386.tar.gz > A lot of things have these versions. What do they correspond to? Looking at > pages such as http://www.scratchbox.org/download/scratchbox-0.9.5.html, I > see no correspondence between how versions on that list and the available > files. On the "Scratchbox 0.9.5" page, one sees: > # gcc-2.95.3 + 40 patches, glibc-2.2.4, binutils-2.12.1 to be used for > compiling kernels > # gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2, binutils-2.13.2.1 for non-kernel compilations > So, would these correspond > to scratchbox-toolchain-cs2005q3.2-glibc-i386-1.0.4-i386.tar.gz or > to scratchbox-toolchain-cs2005q3.2-glibc-i386-1.0.5-i386.tar.gz? Is there > any connection at all between the versions numbers described in the > documentation on scratchbox.org and the file sets that are made available? > How does one find such a connection?
Of course you wont find info about version 1.0 packages on version 0.9.5 documentation. That's just silly. We don't predict the future and write the documentation ages before the actual software. They're package versions. You should look up any other open source project. They keep on developing forward, with tons of fixes, then they release them, increasing the package number. That's exactly what's going on with those package numbers too. The toolchains are a completely different thing, with their own version numbers. > Ok, so assuming "later" means "better", one can just pick the latest > versions. Is that the best thing to do? Yes. > What about these? > scratchbox-toolchain-arm-linux-2007q1-21-1.0.7-i386.tar.gz > scratchbox-toolchain-arm-linux-cs344-2.3-1.0.4-i386.tar.gz > scratchbox-toolchain-arm-linux-ct401-2.3-1.0.4-i386.tar.gz > and > scratchbox-toolchain-arm-gcc3.4-uclibc0.9.28-1.0.4-i386.tar.gz > scratchbox-toolchain-arm-gcc4.1-uclibc20061004-1.0.4-i386.tar.gz Different projects need different toolchains. Many projects need custom toolchains that they have to make themselves. > One has "uclibc" and "0.9.28" and "uclibc" and a date, "0061004". So does > "0.9.28" mean September 28, 2000? Presumably this version of the compiler > does not date from the Roman empire. And what are "ct" and "cs" and 2007Q1 > is when a company would have reported their income to the SEC. Is it also a > compiler version? The versions of toolchains have always been a bit cryptic IMO, but atleast on some you can easily figure stuff out. 2007q1-21 is a codesourcery toolchain from the first quarter of 2007. cs344-2.3 is an older codesourcery toolchain that has GCC 3.4.4 and glibc 2.3. ct401-2.3 is a crosstool toolchain with GCC 4.0.1 and glibc 2.3. The 0.9.28 in the uclibc is a proper version number, while versions like 20061004 usually mean snapshots from the version control system from that date. > And we have scratchbox-devkit-apt-https-1.0.3-i386.tar.gz. > Why would apt and https go together? Why not git and https? Why not perl and > https? Is any of this documented, or is the way to find out to look at all > the source code? apt-https is a tool to use apt through https, go read the Debian documentation. > The installdoc.html says things like: > Base (required): > scratchbox-core - environment, common tools and host compiler > scratchbox-libs - libraries required by core, devkits and toolchains > Development kits (optional): > scratchbox-devkit-debian - environment and tools for Debian > development > scratchbox-devkit-doctools - document generation tools > scratchbox-devkit-perl - additional Perl modules > Toolchains (optional): > scratchbox-toolchain-arm-gcc3.3-glibc2.3 > scratchbox-toolchain-i686-gcc3.3-glibc2.3 > scratchbox-toolchain-arm-gcc3.2-uclibc20040229 > scratchbox-toolchain-i386-gcc3.2-uclibc20040229 > So helpful. Yes, the toolchains are optional, but is there really no > documentation on why one would choose one and not the other. > Are these things just obvious to everyone else using the tools? Where can > one find these things out? It depends on multiple things. Too many things to document properly. Most people using Scratchbox use it for an already existing project (a good example is Maemo), and they always tell the users which toolchain to use. There isn't any options with them. If you're starting a new project, you need to consider quite a lot of stuff and probably test a few different toolchains. Maybe even end up making your own. -- Daniel _______________________________________________ Scratchbox-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scratchbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scratchbox-users
