Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
Dear Tom, In message 20141014081724.GF25506@bill-the-cat you wrote: No, not yet. I am going to mention in the release notes that we're going to strongly start thinking about deleting MAKEALL. We can pick up the deprecation patch early in the next merge window. Can we please keep at least some script (as a wrapper around buildman?) that keeps the old user interface in place? I frequently use git bisect run MAKEALL board ..., and it would be nice if we could keep this working even in newer versions of the code. Or is there a similar alternative command that works with identical parameters for - say - all versions of the last two years or so? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de I will also, for an appropriate fee, certify that your keyboard is object-oriented, and that the bits on your hard disk are template- compatible.- Jeffrey S. Haemer in 411akr$3...@cygnus.com ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
Hi Wolfgang, On 22 October 2014 02:33, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote: Dear Tom, In message 20141014081724.GF25506@bill-the-cat you wrote: No, not yet. I am going to mention in the release notes that we're going to strongly start thinking about deleting MAKEALL. We can pick up the deprecation patch early in the next merge window. Can we please keep at least some script (as a wrapper around buildman?) that keeps the old user interface in place? I frequently use git bisect run MAKEALL board ..., and it would be nice if we could keep this working even in newer versions of the code. Or is there a similar alternative command that works with identical parameters for - say - all versions of the last two years or so? Unfortunately there is not really an equivalent, and buildman only recently - sets its return code correctly - supports building the current tree (previously it required a branch name for the commit to build) During development of buildman/patman I used to keep a separate tree. Then you can run the latest buildman from that tree using you current directory for the bisect. I could perhaps look at adjusting MAKEALL to call buildman if that solution isn't good enough (this will work assuming that buildman has been set up with toolchains, etc.). Still I think a deprecation warning is a good start. Regards, Simon ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
On 10/22/2014 08:11 AM, Simon Glass wrote: Hi Wolfgang, On 22 October 2014 02:33, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote: Dear Tom, In message 20141014081724.GF25506@bill-the-cat you wrote: No, not yet. I am going to mention in the release notes that we're going to strongly start thinking about deleting MAKEALL. We can pick up the deprecation patch early in the next merge window. Can we please keep at least some script (as a wrapper around buildman?) that keeps the old user interface in place? I frequently use git bisect run MAKEALL board ..., and it would be nice if we could keep this working even in newer versions of the code. Or is there a similar alternative command that works with identical parameters for - say - all versions of the last two years or so? Unfortunately there is not really an equivalent, and buildman only recently - sets its return code correctly - supports building the current tree (previously it required a branch name for the commit to build) During development of buildman/patman I used to keep a separate tree. Then you can run the latest buildman from that tree using you current directory for the bisect. I could perhaps look at adjusting MAKEALL to call buildman if that solution isn't good enough (this will work assuming that buildman has been set up with toolchains, etc.). Still I think a deprecation warning is a good start. Simon, While you work on buildman, please consider to regenerate boards.cfg for each build. If one patch in a series adds a board, there will be a false error for patches before it. York ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:11:21AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: Hi Wolfgang, On 22 October 2014 02:33, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote: Dear Tom, In message 20141014081724.GF25506@bill-the-cat you wrote: No, not yet. I am going to mention in the release notes that we're going to strongly start thinking about deleting MAKEALL. We can pick up the deprecation patch early in the next merge window. Can we please keep at least some script (as a wrapper around buildman?) that keeps the old user interface in place? I frequently use git bisect run MAKEALL board ..., and it would be nice if we could keep this working even in newer versions of the code. Or is there a similar alternative command that works with identical parameters for - say - all versions of the last two years or so? Unfortunately there is not really an equivalent, and buildman only recently - sets its return code correctly - supports building the current tree (previously it required a branch name for the commit to build) During development of buildman/patman I used to keep a separate tree. Then you can run the latest buildman from that tree using you current directory for the bisect. I could perhaps look at adjusting MAKEALL to call buildman if that solution isn't good enough (this will work assuming that buildman has been set up with toolchains, etc.). Still I think a deprecation warning is a good start. I think for Wolfgang's case that might just have to be handled with an external wrapper, translating all of the ways to run MAKEALL into buildman, reliably, would be a bit of an undertaking. But for bisect run: if [ -x ./MAKEALL ]; then ./MAKEALL $@ else ./tools/buildman/buildman $@ fi And board will get built, one way or another, defaulting to MAKEALL while it's still here. -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
Dear Tom, In message 20141022160936.GY25506@bill-the-cat you wrote: I think for Wolfgang's case that might just have to be handled with an external wrapper, translating all of the ways to run MAKEALL into Yes, you are right, an external wrapper would work, too. Silly me. OTOH, why not keep a script under the old name that provides such functionality to translate calls to the buildman API? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de People seldom know what they want until you give them what they ask for. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 06:59:44PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Dear Tom, In message 20141022160936.GY25506@bill-the-cat you wrote: I think for Wolfgang's case that might just have to be handled with an external wrapper, translating all of the ways to run MAKEALL into Yes, you are right, an external wrapper would work, too. Silly me. OTOH, why not keep a script under the old name that provides such functionality to translate calls to the buildman API? My concern is that we'll get people complaining about things not being mapped back exactly right. For example, MAKEALL am335x_evm builds one board, am335x_evm_config but buildman am335x_evm builds the whole family of configs. For a build test bisect run, that's fine (even if not optimal in that it'll build more than required). In fact if I read things right (Simon?) buildman is bad for a single board/config. If we map out MAKEALL's -m/-M to just fail and say use get_maintainer.pl I think we can good enough map out everything else. With perhaps an echo to please use buildman directly when possible? -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
Dear Tom, In message 20141022171908.GC25506@bill-the-cat you wrote: My concern is that we'll get people complaining about things not being mapped back exactly right. For example, MAKEALL am335x_evm builds one board, am335x_evm_config but buildman am335x_evm builds the whole family of configs. For a build test bisect run, that's fine (even if not optimal in that it'll build more than required). In fact if I read things right (Simon?) buildman is bad for a single board/config. This is one of my open questions with buildman, too. Simon? If we map out MAKEALL's -m/-M to just fail and say use get_maintainer.pl I think we can good enough map out everything else. With perhaps an echo to please use buildman directly when possible? Sounds good enough to me. Thanks! Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de Q: Do you know what the death rate around here is? A: One per person. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
Hi Wolfgang, On 22 October 2014 11:37, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote: Dear Tom, In message 20141022171908.GC25506@bill-the-cat you wrote: My concern is that we'll get people complaining about things not being mapped back exactly right. For example, MAKEALL am335x_evm builds one board, am335x_evm_config but buildman am335x_evm builds the whole family of configs. For a build test bisect run, that's fine (even if not optimal in that it'll build more than required). In fact if I read things right (Simon?) buildman is bad for a single board/config. This is one of my open questions with buildman, too. Simon? Yes it does a substring match. I'm open to suggestions on this though. It actually supports regular expressions. If we map out MAKEALL's -m/-M to just fail and say use get_maintainer.pl I think we can good enough map out everything else. With perhaps an echo to please use buildman directly when possible? Sounds good enough to me. Thanks! Regards, Simon ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
Dear Simon, In message CAPnjgZ2ZmGiQoi-mKQxK0vNPCs3hhqgk=z5cxbfsum8lju2...@mail.gmail.com you wrote: My concern is that we'll get people complaining about things not being mapped back exactly right. For example, MAKEALL am335x_evm builds one board, am335x_evm_config but buildman am335x_evm builds the whole family of configs. For a build test bisect run, that's fine (even if not optimal in that it'll build more than required). In fact if I read things right (Simon?) buildman is bad for a single board/config. This is one of my open questions with buildman, too. Simon? Yes it does a substring match. I'm open to suggestions on this though. It actually supports regular expressions. So something like buildman '^am335x_evm$' would work? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de Anyone can count the seeds in an apple. No one can count the apples in a seed. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
Hi Wolfgang, On 22 October 2014 11:56, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote: Dear Simon, In message CAPnjgZ2ZmGiQoi-mKQxK0vNPCs3hhqgk= z5cxbfsum8lju2...@mail.gmail.com you wrote: My concern is that we'll get people complaining about things not being mapped back exactly right. For example, MAKEALL am335x_evm builds one board, am335x_evm_config but buildman am335x_evm builds the whole family of configs. For a build test bisect run, that's fine (even if not optimal in that it'll build more than required). In fact if I read things right (Simon?) buildman is bad for a single board/config. This is one of my open questions with buildman, too. Simon? Yes it does a substring match. I'm open to suggestions on this though. It actually supports regular expressions. So something like buildman '^am335x_evm$' would work? Yes: $ ./tools/buildman/buildman -s am335x_evm -n boards.cfg is up to date. Nothing to do. Dry run, so not doing much. But I would do this: Building current source for 5 boards (4 threads, 1 job per thread) Build directory: ../current am335x_evm : 5 boards Total boards to build for each commit: 5 $ ./tools/buildman/buildman -s am335x_evm$ -n boards.cfg is up to date. Nothing to do. Dry run, so not doing much. But I would do this: Building current source for 1 boards (1 thread, 4 jobs per thread) Build directory: ../current am335x_evm$ : 1 boards Total boards to build for each commit: 1 Regards, Simon ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
Dear Simon, In message CAPnjgZ3doDTiju1zJ5WQR-hBx5JkEtm=e7qlsym+q2zsp56...@mail.gmail.com you wrote: So something like buildman '^am335x_evm$' would work? Yes: Thanks a lot! Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de I read part of it all the way through. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
Hi Wolfgang, On 22 October 2014 12:13, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote: Dear Simon, In message CAPnjgZ3doDTiju1zJ5WQR-hBx5JkEtm=e7qlsym+q2zsp56...@mail.gmail.com you wrote: So something like buildman '^am335x_evm$' would work? Yes: Thanks a lot! I hope/think that we are getting through most of the use cases now. The main issue I'm aware of is getting tool chains. Regards, Simon ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
Hi Tom, On 28 August 2014 17:43, Simon Glass s...@chromium.org wrote: Since buildman now includes most of the features of MAKEALL it is probably time to talk about deprecating MAKEALL. Comments welcome. Signed-off-by: Simon Glass s...@chromium.org Should this patch go in the release? Regards, Simon ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:38:36AM +0200, Simon Glass wrote: Hi Tom, On 28 August 2014 17:43, Simon Glass s...@chromium.org wrote: Since buildman now includes most of the features of MAKEALL it is probably time to talk about deprecating MAKEALL. Comments welcome. Signed-off-by: Simon Glass s...@chromium.org Should this patch go in the release? No, not yet. I am going to mention in the release notes that we're going to strongly start thinking about deleting MAKEALL. We can pick up the deprecation patch early in the next merge window. -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
[U-Boot] [PATCH v10 14/14] RFC: Deprecate MAKEALL
Since buildman now includes most of the features of MAKEALL it is probably
time to talk about deprecating MAKEALL.
Comments welcome.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass s...@chromium.org
---
Changes in v10: None
Changes in v9: None
Changes in v8: None
Changes in v7:
- Remove already-applied patches from the series
- Add the deprecation message at the end of the build also
- Drop the 'colour' patch sadly
Changes in v6: None
Changes in v5:
- Drop patch to search for *cc instead of *gcc for the compiler
MAKEALL | 10 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/MAKEALL b/MAKEALL
index 392ea8d..2321df0 100755
--- a/MAKEALL
+++ b/MAKEALL
@@ -60,6 +60,14 @@ usage()
exit ${ret}
}
+deprecation() {
+ echo ** Note: MAKEALL is deprecated - please use buildman instead
+ echo ** See tools/buildman/README for details
+ echo
+}
+
+deprecation
+
SHORT_OPTS=ha:c:v:s:b:lmMCnr
LONG_OPTS=help,arch:,cpu:,vendor:,soc:,board:,list,maintainers,mails,check,continue,rebuild-errors
@@ -849,6 +857,8 @@ print_stats() {
kill_children
fi
+ deprecation
+
exit $RC
}
--
2.1.0.rc2.206.gedb03e5
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
