#2540: RSB has problems building into existing directory ----------------------------+---------------------------- Reporter: Simon Williams | Owner: Needs Funding Type: defect | Status: assigned Priority: normal | Milestone: Indefinite Component: tool/rsb | Version: 5 Severity: normal | Resolution: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------------+----------------------------
Comment (by Sebastian Huber): Replying to [comment:17 Chris Johns]: > Replying to [comment:16 Sebastian Huber]: > > It is not just the Binutils that make problems. There are at least five issues in case a tool chain is already present. > > > > 1. The build uses the existing Binutils instead of the ones built right now. > > If I used the same prefix as an bare metal ELF tool chain could gcc pick up that assembler? I don't know. > > Do we need more or better documentation on the `$prefix` in the User manual? Yes, I didn't find a hint that an existing installation may interfere with the current build. > > > 2. Some header and other files of the existing installation may be used instead of the one from the current sources. > > Why is gcc doing this? It seems wrong and dangerous. https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2540#comment:5 > > > 3. The installation adds only files, it does not remove obsolete files leaving a mixture of old and new files in the prefix. > > The binutils and gcc do just this as well. The RSB is not a packaging or deployment tool. That is a role I see existing outside of the RTEMS project where specialisation and support can happen. I think this should be clarified in the documentation. > > > 4. The Ada installation stops with permission errors. > > I thought this was in the Ada build when run from python? As far as I remember it was an issue in the Python copytree area. > > > 5. In case something goes wrong it is not easy to figure out that the reason is an existing installation that interfered. > > Agreed, but why is it the role of the RSB tool (not the configuration parts) to deal with this? > > I have offered a solution and I am willing to review patches. I think your proposal is fine. I just wanted to highlight that there are multiple problems if you have an existing installation. -- Ticket URL: <http://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2540#comment:18> RTEMS Project <http://www.rtems.org/> RTEMS Project
_______________________________________________ bugs mailing list bugs@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/bugs