[En-Nut-Discussion] NutOS configurator

[Harald Kipp]

Ole Reinhardt schrieb:

> Unfortunately 2.8 is not available as package for Debian / Unstable.
>   
Building wxWidgets from the sources is painless:
http://www.ethernut.de/en/documents/debiansage.html
(Yeah, I know I mistyped Sarge :-))
> Ok, what's about the following proposal:
>
> Save global settings in the conf file, not in a global ~/.NutConf.
> Always use a relativ path, so that starting from the conf file the
> directory structure is known.
>
> For me it seems that there is no consistent handling of the source and
> buld path.
>   
Mh, I typically do not change the conf files unless I need to create a 
new one for a different target. But I agree, that the initial version of 
the Configurator ignored the fact, that people want to build for more 
than one target configuration. On Windows we are using conf file 
specific subentries in the registry, which seems to work quite well. 
Frankly, I do not know right now, if and how this is done for Linux.


> If you use cvs snapshots, you'll never have a consitent version
> numbering. So using a directory calles ethernut-x.y.z is'nt a smart
> solution.
>   
...
> But I would suggest something similar
>
> -NutOS+
>       |   
>       nut+...
>       |  |... 
>       |
>       build+...
>       |    |...
>       | 
>       examples+...
>               |...
>
> This directory structure could be used for all supported platforms.
>   
Just to make sure that I understood: The source code package will of 
course unpack into ethernut-x.x.z/, but you suggest to copy this to 
nutos/ during installation.

Compared to the Windows installation the only difference is, that the 
root is called nutos instead of ethernut-x.y.z/. The directory structure 
is the same and this would solve some problems with the Configurator 
running on Linux.

On the other hand, removing the version from the root directory name 
will no more allow to keep several Nut/OS versions active on one machine.


> I know, it's not an easy task to switch from one tool to another.
> Basically Kconfig files and the NutConf config files are not that
> different. The idea is the same.
>
> I would be voluntary to set up a basic build environment for NutOS based
> on Kconfig. Then we could evaluate what is a better solution and ask the
> community to decide.
>   
I'm almost sure, that we will never get a clear vote for one or the 
other tool. The wxWidgets/Lua based solution is quite fancy and, thanks 
to Lua, has a big potential (see the dynamic display of the Nut/OS 
version). On the other hand, it'd be an advantage to get a second 
solution just for the price of some porting efforts. You can probably 
count on me, specifically when it comes to the translation of existing 
config files.

Harald