| Re: [cdt-dev] Gerrit review for core build autotools |
|
Hi Doug, Thanks for your earlier feedback, another question before I submit patches for
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=525591 : currently the code changes involved is ~800 lines mostly for adding 3 new plugins. Would it be better to split as individual gerrit review
for core/ui/feature plugins? Your latest commit on multiple toolchain support for core build/cmake came at the right time as I was wondering how to represent or manage multiple toolchains in core build projects, so that’ll be my next
focus after I’m done with the current patch. --Chin Huat From: <cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cool. I’m looking forward to it. I am OK with the feature starting out minimal and growing. We put the label (Experimental) on the feature name when doing that. And we did do that with CMake which I also consider it still experimental until
we get it settled which might not be until Photon in June. I think it should be fine to co-exist. They will have different new project templates. Being experimental, it wouldn’t be in the Eclipse C/C++ IDE and people will have to manually install it so should know
what they’re getting into. I think using ‘corebuild’ in the name is a bit long and will stick out. We can do what I’ve done for the GCC core build toolchain and just call it ‘build’. And yes, you can put it beside it in the build directory. Hope that helps, Doug. From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ang, Chin Huat Hi, I’d like to submit patches on core build autotools project for review, although I’d like to get some advice before getting started. Are there any concerns to enable a basic core build autotools implementation first and gradually beef up the features over time? For the time being I plan to focus on enabling cross toolchains, although I
had some quick look at org.eclipse.cdt.autotools.core & org.eclipse.cdt.autotools.ui plugin.xml and realized that it will take some time for core build implementation to be as feature complete as the MBS counterpart. Is it OK for core build implementation
to coexist (i.e. enable in the builds) with the MBS implementation? Is there a minimum expectation of features that need to be implemented or supported for a new C/C++ project type? So far I’ve managed to get the basic stuffs working by looking at the CMake project, e.g. new
template wizard, a simple template manifest, nature, build config provider, build config. I’m able to build and debug simple autotools project natively but that’s pretty much it for now. Is it alright for me to submit patches for gerrit review to get some
feedback? Are there any preference on the naming or source tree location of the new plugins? I’ve tentatively created new plugins as build/org.eclipse.cdt.corebuild.autotools.core, build/org.eclipse.cdt.corebuild.autotools.ui
and build/org.eclipse.cdt.corebuild.autotools-feature, please let me know if this is alright and I’ll update them as required. --Chin Huat |