Mark bond wrote:
Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Scott W wrote:
while useful in it's own right, should be clearly marked as either a legacy doc (for example, glibc is not going to be used for AOS OOo port AFAIK....umm, and it isn't 'command line parsing', although it's possible they use GNU getopt functionality _from_ glibc..)
I assume they use getopt_long, which isn't part of the standard C library... clib2 has getopt...
, it shoudl clearly state these are the _LINUX_ dependencies rather than AOS', or be marked as: 'Linux': <dependency AOS: <replacement, equivalent, or porting status>
Good idea...
It already does, in the paragraph at the top of the page it clearly states that these dependencies are for Linux (until someone made an AOS section at the bottom which appears to be almost a copy of the Linux version).
Mark
Yes, that would be me, _after_ sending the original comment. It wasn't meant to be an exact replacement, it was meant to be a checklist stating what would be used on AOS OOo, with replacements or comments about each being supported or not. I think it's worth leaving the original OO/Linux/other platform requirements as they are for comparison, and also to see what we're missing at a glance, as well as evolve into a specific set of build tools and dependencies, so people just popping in don't go insane wonder 'where's glibc for AOS' and the like.
As mentioned, as soon as I have my uA1, if it's not already done, I'd be happy to go through each dependency and update the status, at least with respect to AOS4.
If someone has a better suggestion on how to track 'what OO wants versus what we've got,' I'm all for it....but we've got to start somewhere, even if some of the content is a placeholder until more investigation can be done.
Scott