Hi, everyone, If there are any build issue remaining. please file bugs and assign them to me, I will try to sort them out or give hints on system I can't support.
Anyway a couple of comments, bellow On 23/11/16 00:54, Nivedita Singhvi wrote: > On 11/22/2016 03:39 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On domingo, 20 de novembro de 2016 19:51:53 PST Heldt-Sheller, Nathan >> wrote: >>> I ran into the same build issue yesterday. IoTivity 1.2.0 worked >>> without >>> issues when it was released. But it looks like the update to TinyCBOR >>> since then has broken the 1.2.0 release. >> was this reported on tracker ? we should have use fixed tag in 1.2-rel branch Meanwhile I've updated this chapter about lib dependencies: https://wiki.iotivity.org/build#tinycbor > > We are all pretty invested in having iotivity become successful, and I > hope > that the above is seen as a necessary part of that. I appreciate the > developers > who are working hard to contribute code and tests very much, and am even > more deeply grateful to the developers who go out of their way to help > users > with problems and testing (especially Philippe Coval), etc. They're > doing a great > job. Thanks that's nice I appreciate that I was useful to some of you. I can also keep investigating any build issues, but I would really appreciate if they were reported in BUG TRACKER and then mentioned in mailing list or in other channels like IRC. Maybe I'll create a page on wiki to help users what can be done on issues, and how to report issues efficiently/ Now, I think the problem we are facing is also tied to the nature of the project, it's about interoperabilty so there is a lot of combinations to support, maybe bigger that our developer community, scons is not making life easier but it has its advantages too ... Anyway if project gains more adoption, It could only improve over time: more users = more BUG REPORTS = more fixes = better quality = less complains. Again feel free to edit or improve wiki, I'll track those pages and will try to maintain them (based on my observations) on each release (or big steps of the project) : https://wiki.iotivity.org/build : about dependencies https://wiki.iotivity.org/os : about supported OS https://wiki.iotivity.org/hardware : about successful or attempts to deploy on hardware Now back to the question about lib managements, my opinion is that it is OK to rely on moving branches on master branch while this can not be acceptable for releases branches or releases. For instance, yesterday I noticed that in 1.2-rel branch mbedtls scons helper is suggesting to fetch master branch , Shouldn't we invite use to download 0.4.1 tag ? I'll share a patch. Regards and see you on bug tracker. -- mailto:philippe.coval at osg.samsung.com gpg:0x467094BC https://blogs.s-osg.org/author/pcoval/
