[U-Boot] MAKEALL

["Andreas Bießmann" <andreas.devel@googlemail.com>]

Dear Graeme Russ,

Am 19.10.2011 00:33, schrieb Graeme Russ:
> Hi Wolfgang,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
>> Dear Mike Frysinger,
>>
>> In message <201110181301.57390.vapier@gentoo.org> you wrote:

<snip>

>> And then, for compatibility testings, I want to compile all this with
>> ELDK 4.2.  Or ELDK 4.1. Or CodeSourcery xxx. Or...
>>
>> I see no clean way to implement this - ok, we could provide an
>> external tool / data base that maps boards or SoC names to
>> CROSS_COMPILE/ARCH/PATH settings, which each user has to configure for
>> his own set of tool chain settings.
> 
> IMHO, for running MAKEALL, I see no problem with this. If we had a
> 'toolchains.cfg' file which could be a format like:
> 
> #ARCH	SOC	BOARD	TOOLCHAIN
> x86	sc520	-	/path/to/gcc
> 
> This would give new developers a head-up as to what the defacto toolchains
> are

That is OK.

> We can then have 'toolchains.cfg.local' which is added to .gitignore so
> individual users can override the toolchain. But all patch submissions
> must pass MAKEALL without using toolchains.cfg.local (something like
> 'MAKEALL --no-custom-toolchains'. The first thing MAKEALL should do is
> scan toolchains.cfg (and toolchains.cfg.local if required) for each
> selected arch and check that each toolchain is available and spit out
> 'toolchain not available' warnings.

But I don't like to force the users to have _all_ toolchains installed
on their work station. I think the current procedure to MAKEALL _at
least_ two different arches is enough.
Furthermore I don't like to force the users to have a specific toolchain
for submitting a patch to the list. I think it is a benefit to have a
lot of different toolchains on different host systems building the code,
but one should see the build-environment in MAKEALL output to be able to
distinguish between error from patch or error from toolchain.

> All we need to do then is setup our build machines to do an automated
> git-pull and MAKEALL

It is a good idea for some automated build process which runs in the
backyard and spit out some error/warning messages if one patch does
break the build unattended (i.e. the two arches MAKEALL did fail).

best regards

Andreas Bie?mann