This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: eCos build problem - wrong path for repository


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]