On Dec 9, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Nilay Vaish wrote: > On Sun, 9 Dec 2012, Andreas Hansson wrote: > >> >> May I ask why you see this as a problem? Any Unix/Linux/OSx system from the >> last 5+ years has these dependencies as packages (and I bet they work >> smoother than e.g. swig :-) >> > > I doubt that this statement is true. I am using RHEL 6 and it does not have > protoc installed. I am guessing that would mean people who use Fedora will > not have it installed either. Ubuntu (12.10) has it. I don't know about Mint > or other distributions. As far as package availability protobufs is available since Fedora 16 as well as EL6. It's also available in all currently supported Ubuntu versions as well as mint and debian and just about everything else: http://pkgs.org/search/?keyword=protobuf
So I think package availability is a separate concern from user experience. It's absolutely true that there would be another dependency, the question in my mind is that dependency a larger burden than we currently expect from the user and are the benefits of the library worth it? I think this is the best possible path toward being able to output memory traces, which we do seem to get a fair number of requests for on the mailing list. > This may not affect ARM, but one of the reasons why I am involved with gem5 > is that I would like people in architecture to be using the simulator that I > have contributed to. I think ARM is completely committed making gem5 successful in the broader architecture community, as evidenced by the large number of change sets with committers from ARM. Ali _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
