Hello Guys, In my specific situation, I use NuttX separately from the application, deployed as a library.
And I use CMake to build my application. My reason to choose CMake was tool integration and easier support to add other open source libraries. CMake can build fast, but make is not slow. In fact, CMake is a makefile file generator. I use ninja in my builds, but could be make as well. Probably that's the reason that it works better in different environments. Adding another point for the discussion, maybe the build system for the operating system should not be the same for the application, just like Linux today. The build system challenge is more relevant if you have OS and apps together. Considering OS as, somehow, a BSP, then I don't know what would be the value for changing the build system. Best regards, Flavio Em qui., 10 de jun. de 2021 às 04:50, Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> escreveu: > > Hello, > > Le 10/06/2021 à 02:00, Matias N. a écrit : > > With regards to comments about others requiring some hands-on time to become > > familiar with the system and try it for themselves: I agree with this point > > and was one > > of the reasons I actually started the migration. As I mentioned several > > weeks ago, > > the cmake branch can already be tested on the currently supported boards by > > everyone > > wishing to do so, but I don't think anyone really tried it as my offers > > about > > assistance in this were unanswered. > > I have no doubt that the new build system will work better. > > I understand that it builds faster than the existing and requires less > kludges, and permits out of tree builds. > > But it's a fundamental change about how to approach the NuttX OS globally. > > The track record of this OS in terms of user documentation is not very > good, to be honest, it requires a lot of time to dig in various source > files and different web sites to understand how to do something. > > This is not only my experience, it's the feeling of all of the ~10 > persons I have tried to introduce to Nuttx: This OS is hard, it does not > guide beginners and it's hard to do "WHAT I WANT" (which is usually not > configuring nsh on a stm32f4discovery, but hands-on use case on custom > hardware with custom apps). > > With that in mind, I am very worried of a supplemental dispersion of > useful documentation. > > At what release/commit does the build system becomes cmake? before that, > please refer to the make build system documentation. chances are that > this doc quickly becomes 404, leaving all users of all versions in the > dark. for commits after that, please refer to this other documentation > on some personal blog, but only for release a.b.c later than this date. > > I dont think cmake is technically wrong, but from a USER POINT OF VIEW, > it will become a nightmare and will drive new contributors away, because > of documentation problems. > > Not to mention old users who spend weeks just to migrate a few boards > from an old to a new nuttx, just because a makefile and a critical > variable were renamed but no migration documentation exists. Add more > changes, and a project may become unusable in the current state of the > project. > > So please. Keep NuttX interfaces STABLE for users that need it. It's not > a beta project anymore, it's "mature" as you advertise it, which means > it has some real industrial users that matter more than abstract > technical beauty. EXTRADEFINES now also need to include flags. hah, not > cool. I should rename that to EXTRAFLAGS, thats more cute. But how many > users will suffer from this apparently benign change? These questions > NEED to be asked by developers and contributors and reviewers. > > When you make a change, please ask yourselves: how many unknown users > will I f*k up with that? > > As a famous quote more or less goes, because it can be done does not > mean it should be done. > > And having a generator that derives cmake files from current makefiles > feels a bit like xkcd #927 > > Sebastien > -- Flavio de Castro Alves Filho flavio.al...@gmail.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/fraviofii LinkedIn profile: www.linkedin.com/in/flaviocastroalves
