[Tinyos Core WG] toolchain rationale

[Vlado Handziski]

On 11/17/06, Jan Beutel <j.beutel at ieee.org> wrote:
>
> basically there are two issues with the current toolchain that make it
> cumbersome to install/move:
>
> - avr-libc has deprecated avr/signal.h in versions > 1.4.x
> - ncc and nescc assume absolute install paths
>
>
We had this discussion with David some time ago. Take a look at the thread:
http://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/pipermail/tinyos-2.0wg/2006-July/002261.html

David managed to persuade me that relocatable rpms are more pain than what
is worth. He also made his point by sending me the following  bit from the
fedora packaging guidelines:

****
Relocatable packages

The use of RPM's facility for generating relocatable packages is
strongly discouraged. It is difficult to make work properly,
impossible to use from the installer or from yum, and not generally
necessary if other packaging guidelines are followed. However, in the
unlikely event that you have a good reason to make a package
relocatable, you MUST state this intent and reasoning in the request
for package review.

****


We still have our relocatable .spec files for ncc and nescc (they worked for
the versions around the time of the thread) , but they use a lot of sed
magic that needs to be updated for the current versions. I think that they
were also put on the repository somewhere. I can take a look if you are
really interested :)

Vlado
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/pipermail/tinyos-2.0wg/attachments/20061117/d75190ff/attachment-0001.htm