[Buildroot] Buildroot 2009.02 released

[Ulf Samuelsson <ulf.samuelsson@atmel.com>]

fre 2009-02-20 klockan 09:23 +0100 skrev Peter Korsgaard:
> >>>>> "Ulf" == Ulf Samuelsson <ulf.samuelsson@atmel.com> writes:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  >> Some testing was certainly done, but more is ofcourse always welcome.
> 
>  Ulf> I am not aware that anyone but myself has published any test results.
> 
> I did for the toolchains, and for everything else I just fixed the
> problems when I found any.
> 
>  Ulf> There is no recommended way to publish test results.
>  Ulf> No recommended format etc.
> 
> Sure, like with all other issues - Add an issue to the tracker or mail
> the list, both preferably with a patch.

You REALLY dont get it , do you?

If you for once stopped seeing Buildroot as a hobby
and take the view of someone wanting to build 
a root file system without digging deep into 
the internals of Buildroot, then you would realize
that Bugzilla is NOT the way this shoudl be communicated.

You want to know what builds and what doesn't.
If it does not build, then you do not even want 
to try to build it.

Bugzilla is useful to document what goes wrong.
For users, you want a simple yes/no answer if this builds or not.


>  Ulf> Once it is discovered that there is a problem, there is no clean
>  Ulf> way to inform the user that there is a problem with a certain
>  Ulf> package so each new user will waste a lot of time trying
>  Ulf> to build what is known to be broken.
> 
> Well, if you mail the list or add an issue, there is.

Not in a usable format.

> 
>  Ulf> Depending on BROKEN is wrong if it builds for other architectures,
> 
> Yes, it should be depends on BROKEN if BR2_<arch> ofcourse.
> 
>  Ulf> There are several packages that does not build, at least for ARM.
>  >> 
>  >> Well, let's work on them then. Please start by providing a list -
>  >> Either here or as bugtracker issues.
>  >> 
> 
>  Ulf> My docs/buildall.sh has comments on what is broken for ARM.
> 
> And as I commented several times, your setup is not representative for
> normal buildroot users as several packages that didn't build with your
> script builds just fine in a normal buildroot setup.

There are dependencies on the host distribution.
I have seen that some packages sometimes use the host includes.

If the host includes do things in the same way as the buildroot
includes that should have been used, then the build can
complete, even though the package is inherently BROKEN.

If they are different, then the build breaks.


> 
>  Ulf> I think that running this for different architectures will show if
>  Ulf> they build or not.
> 
>  Ulf> As for running different applications, I hear that gtk does not run,
>  Ulf> but I dont extensively test applications.
> 
> I used it ~1 month ago on ARM without problems. If you find problems,
> then please report them to the list / tracker.

>  Ulf> Maybe we could put some focus on these points.
>  >> 
>  >> Sure, but please be a bit more specific.

I think we should create a range of rootfs definitions
with reasonable combinations for testing purposes.

* Busybox only.
* A communications oriented (no graphics)
  Maybe an Internet Radio /Audio player
* DirectFB with a simple touch interface
* X-Windows

This should be tested on multiple distributions
(Ubuntu/Fedora/OpenSuSE etc.).

We then need to define certain tests that needs to be run on the target.

The result should be published as web pages in docs

> 
>  Ulf> I think it is amateurish  to just go about trying to fix issues.
>  Ulf> We need to establish the structure for how we test,
>  Ulf> how we publish what we test and how we mark
>  Ulf> packages with problem so that users do not waste their time.
> 
> Heh, I would certainly prefer to spend our energy on actually fixing
> stuff than arguing about how to show what's broken. Everything broken
> is a bug, and bugs should get fixed.
> 

That is because either you do not care about others
or you do not grip the situation.
Do you think that if buildroot was a commercial tool
that people would accept your opinion, or would they
go to someone more interested in their problems?

I want to spend my energy on making it easier for people 
without too much knowledge to get an embedded linux system
running and telling people up front what works and does not work
is key to get acceptance.

Bugs needs to be fixed, as time permits,
but if that is the only support provided, then this
is no tool for anything but hobbyists like yourself.


> Again, please use the bug tracker.
> 
> I'm not against doing more structured build tests, and will look into
> getting buildbot running again with some sensible defconfigs soonish,
> but that shouldn't stop you or anyone else from reporting (and fixing)
> bugs.
> 

It is not enough to report and fix bugs.
BR
Ulf Samuelsson