[ECOS] eCos build problem - wrong path for repository

[Jonathan Larmour]

Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 06:36:26AM -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 04:47, Kristin Hofstee wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks for the tips.  Could you also point me to the most recent
>>>stable version or non-alpha version?
>>
>>The current version is only labeled "alpha" for licensing reasons,
>>not because there is a lot of new or untested code.  It's your best
>>place to start.
> 
> 
> This is still not entirely clear to me.
> 
> Some time ago I read on this list that version 2.0 was not yet ready
> as a "stable release" (pity I can't find back that message). 

Indeed a proper release would come later. What's mentioned was an alpha 
because it was a repository snapshot, that's all. It doesn't have a proper 
installer for windows, RPM for linux, and hasn't been QA'd per se. But 
it's no worse than any other repository snapshot.

 > Also the
> Red Hat side on eCos heavily points towards 1.3.x versions.

http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/install-linux.html and 
http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/install-windows.html both say at the top:

-=-=-=-=-
The latest development versions of eCos are now provided via the  eCos 
anonymous CVS repository, and it is strongly recommended that wherever 
possible this mechanism is used in preference to downloading eCos 1.3.1. 
eCos 1.3.1 does not have the functionality, platform coverage, nor bug 
fixes that are available in the latest versions of eCos.
-=-=-=-=-

> On the other hand, newcomers that downloaded version 1.3.x get the 
> typical advice to upgraded to the latest CVS version 
> (the most recent I could see is ecos-v2-alpha-snap-2002-10-14.tar.bz2
> from http://www.ecoscentric.com/snapshots/).
> 
> So, my questions:
> (a) what is currently the best version to start off for a 
>     "conservative/efficient" development ? 
>     (we used 1.3.x in the past and this worked fine, but now, 
>     the situation is not entirely clear to me).

I could not bear to advise anyone to use 1.3.x, and I personally wouldn't 
help anyone who was using it.

> (b) what is the schedule to move 2.0 to beta and stable releases ?

Schedule? None now. It's more a case of "X, Y, and Z need to be done 
first". That includes the patch backlog, website overhaul, and severe 
rewriting of big chunks of docs. And we've now lost a lot of the release 
infrastructure that was in place in Red Hat and we'd expected to use and 
that will need to be recreated. And then there's the QA of the sources, 
for which we'll now need substantial net input (there's no point starting 
this effort till the previous bits are done really, otherwise the source 
base will have moved on).

Won't be this year, put it like that.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric       http://www.eCosCentric.com/       <info@eCosCentric.com>
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss