[ECOS] Some findings with multiple eCos repositories in ECOS_REPOSITORY

[Øyvind Harboe]

- I had to copy over pkgconf to my secondary repository to fix the
error below. Is this intentional? What's the correct procedure here?
  ..../packages/pkgconf/rules.mak: No such file or directory

- Rather than modifying the eCos repository to fix bugs, I can place
my eCos repository before THE eCos repository. I've got a fair number
of bugs fixed in eCos that haven't made into CVS repository yet(for
various reasons, about 50% of my bugfixes have).

- Having a secondary repository with my stuff allows me to use source
control easily on my stuff.

- One annoying thing with THE eCos repository is that it contains
bizillion hardware   configurations and other stuff that does not need
to be in the eCos repository I use during development. I would like
all the stuff that *I* don't use moved into a seperate eCos repository
to make the download/CVS update of the eCos repository more
lightweight. Perhaps some sensible split exists that makes sense to
90% of the people out there.

- I never used or liked the epk stuff. With multiple eCos repositories
I can't see the advantage of copying & pasting some 3rd party eCos
stuff into the main eCos repository using epk. Doesn't multiple eCos
repositories render epk obsolete?

- I believe there exists HALs that could be open source, while it does
not make sense that they are maintained by the eCos maintainers.
Multiple eCos repositories allows this easily and cleanly.

- I don't see a problem with generated HALs using multiple eCos repositories.

Most excellent feature! Much too well hidden!

It resolves many(all?) of my outstanding objections to how the eCos
repository is organised.



-- 
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com

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