On 2016-06-16, Michael W. Ellis <mel...@pesa.com> wrote:
> Our approach in the past was to use the GUI tool but I agree that
> your approach is better since the script file more or less
> self-documents the process and is easily tracked under revision
> control. Getting from the GUI based configuration to script based
> configuration requires some trial and error grunt work with file
> comparison tools to figure out exactly what options were changed in
> the GUI but it's probably worth it in the long run.
Yep, reverse-engineering a script from an existing .ecc file is a bit
of a chore, but I think it's probably worth it. Like you said, it
takes a bit of of file comparison. If enough work was done up-front
so that there's a template that includes the proper set of packages
it's possible that you won't need much more more than
"ecosconfig new <whatever>"
"ecosconfig tree"
... with perhaps a few option settings in between.
You can also add new templates or change existing ones so that you
have to do fewer "ecosconfig add" and "ecosconfig del" commands in
your script. That's mostly a matter of personal taste.
> You asked what I meant by "cleaning". The GUI tool basically has
> three build options: clean, library and tests.
Ah. I don't know what exactly what the GUI does when you tell it to
"clean". It might just do a "make clean", or it might remove
everything except the .ecc file and do an "ecosconfig tree".
BTW: I've been assuming you're doing development on a *nix host. If
you're doing it under Windows+Cywgin, pretty much all the advise
applies, but you end up with a whole extra layer of possible issues
with Cygwin.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! An INK-LING? Sure --
at TAKE one!! Did you BUY any
gmail.com COMMUNIST UNIFORMS??
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
