[En-Nut-Discussion] STM32L1xx series status

[Ulrich Prinz]

Hi Uwe,

Thanks for the script, but I might have to explain a bit, what my
intentions are...

All bigger projects like an OS are not a one-man show but different people
contribute in parts of the project, where they have knowledge, but just
issue wishes and suggestions in parts, where they have no skills.
I specialized in hw/sw interface programming and even I code in kernel
drivers or parts of Android, I still code in C99. So my QT skills, or any
other graphical UI skills, are practically non existent.

So if I tell about a feature I like to see in the UI, it is as it is, a
feature that I like to see, but I cannot implement.

For the script workaround.... I, personally, do not have any problems to
work around and around, but as I did in the former company, I need to do in
the current: I train people to work with nutO/S.
I was telling people how easy it is, delevloping great things with
nutO/S... But then I start the training with workaround over workaround...

With the last company it ended in a nutO/S where company IP and open source
code where so wrapped and twisted and worked around, that it was not
possible to push back nice ideas to the repositories.
So with this run, I'd like to keep open source code and company IP strictly
separated. And I wanted to keep out any kind of workaround that needs to
exist longer than 6 weeks until an official solution is found.

The thread now has a different title, so I open up a new one to request
this feature... So things do not get messed up again.


2014-12-28 11:27 GMT+01:00 Uwe Bonnes <
bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de>:

> >>>>> "Ulrich" == Ulrich Prinz <ulrich.prinz at googlemail.com> writes:
>
> ...
>
> Sorry if I didn't read carefully enough.
>
>     Ulrich> Finally that is the thing I requested 5 years ago: Why can't we
>     Ulrich> add an option to save the project path in the configuration
>     Ulrich> (even optionally)?
>
> As with every FOSS project, it is up to the communitiy to propose a coded
> solution. Was such a solution discarded? I think 5 years ago, I was a
> casual
> lurker only and I don't remember.
>
>     Ulrich> I see that a normal standard project
>     Ulrich> delivered with the package of NutO/S should work with every
>     Ulrich> configuration, but users of NutO/S do not stay at using only
> the
>     Ulrich> projects delivered with the system. They build projects on top
>     Ulrich> of the system. And I will probably have three different STM32
>     Ulrich> CPUs in my next projects, so I have to switch not only the
>     Ulrich> application, but the complete library path with every project
>     Ulrich> setting.
>
> For my projects, I use a different location for each application projects.
> To
> create the build environment, I start with the .conf file of the project in
> it's own directory and create the build trees with:
>
> #!/bin/bash
>
> NUTSOURCE=/home/bon/devel/ethernut_sf/nut
>
> NUTCONFIGURE=$NUTSOURCE/tools/nutconf/src/nutconfigure
> NUTREPO=$NUTSOURCE/conf/repository.nut
> BASE=$(basename $1 .conf)
> if [ -z "$2" ]
> then
>    TOOLCHAIN=cm3-gcc
> else
>    TOOLCHAIN=$2
> fi
>
> $NUTCONFIGURE -b lib_$BASE -c $BASE.conf -l lib_$BASE/lib -r $NUTREPO -s
> $NUTSOURCE -m$TOOLCHAIN create-buildtree
> $NUTCONFIGURE -b lib_$BASE -c $BASE.conf -l lib_$BASE/lib -r $NUTREPO -s
> $NUTSOURCE -m$TOOLCHAIN create-usertree
>
>
> Then I copy a Makefile of a simple nut/app/xxx application and adapt it.
> This scheme is still missing a dependancy between work in the ethernut tree
> and the application tree, but it keeps things well apart.
>
> Is the "--create-usertree" a usefull option for your problem?
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> --
> Uwe Bonnes                bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de
>
> Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
> --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo/en-nut-discussion
>