nope, not amy longer. On July 13, 2018 5:47:10 PM MDT, Dave Thaler <dtha...@microsoft.com> wrote: >Phil Coval is the Tizen submaintainer > >-----Original Message----- >From: iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org <iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org> >On Behalf Of Mats Wichmann >Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 4:22 PM >To: IoTivity Developer List <iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org> >Subject: [dev] Tizen > > >Does the tizen build have a maintainer any longer? > >I'm finding it utterly unmaintainable due to the convoluted nature of >the build (*). Most improvements I test to the overall build system >trip over the fact that tizen doesn't see them. I'm not talking about >major overhauls here, this appears in things like: "put the C++ build >flags into each target-specific build script, and not in individual >code build scripts". Tizen uses gcc, so the flag we want here is >"-std=c++11" >(iotivity definitely requires C++11 support). So, instead of a random >script like, say, service/scene-manager/SConscript defining >"-std=c++11" >(along with about 70 others), put it in build_common/tizen/SConscript. >And build_common/linux/SConscript. And so on. > >But if you put it there, the tizen CI build doesn't see it, because >some of the multiple times scons is called have not pre-provisioned >their build area with the same setup as the source tree so they never >read that script (and, if you want to cast blame more widely, scons >doesn't consider the missing script an error, just a warning. scons >upstream will probably fix this... BUT tizen is apparently forever >bound to a frozen binary rpm of scons 2.1.0, now almost 7 years old, so >that change won't help anything). > >At this point, I'm ready to propose we drop the tizen CI build unless a >maintainer is willing to help fix this mess. I'm unable fix stuff that >should be generic, and actually would help the other builds be more >clean and easy to support, but are blocked by Jenkins not able to pass >the tizen build. The tizen build doesn't behave like any other. I'm >not prepared to waste any more of my (volunteer) time on fighting it. > >-- mats >(build maintainer) > > >(* footnote) convoluted == the build script calls a shell script, which >copies some things and moves some around, which then calls gbs, which >calls rpmbuild, which uses a specfile which contains instructions to >call scons to do the build. then three more times, the build script >calls scons which constructs a command to call a gbs setup script, each >of which copies different things to different places than the first >setup script, and then calls gbs which calls rpmbuild, each with a >unique rpm scecfile, which calls scons with arguments that don't seem >to match what anyone else's build of iotivity does these days. So for >these three cases, we actually have recursive scons calls, but they're >not able to accurately share build environments. I'm claiming >"convoluted" >is a fair statement here. > > >
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#9773): https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/message/9773 Mute This Topic: https://lists.iotivity.org/mt/23405346/21656 Group Owner: iotivity-dev+ow...@lists.iotivity.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
