[Fedora-electronic-lab] [Fedora Electronic Lab] #87: Package eclipse-sdcc - Eclipse plugin for sdcc
by fedora-badges
#87: Package eclipse-sdcc - Eclipse plugin for sdcc
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: chitlesh | Owner: konrad(a)tylerc.org
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14
Component: embedded design | Version: devel
Keywords: sdcc, embedded |
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
= phenomenon =
Missing eclipse plugin for sdcc
= background analysis =
The eclipseSDCC project aims to provide full support for the open source
Small Device C Compiler (SDCC) from within the eclipse/CDT development
environment. This allows embedded 'C' applications for 8051 and Z80
devices to be developed using the fully featured eclipse IDE.
EclipseSDCC supports CDT managed make projects. In managed make projects
CDT manages the build process by creating and maintaining the underlaying
makefiles. CDT keeps track of source dependencies and can automatically
rebuild the target when needed.
= implementation recommendation =
sdcc is already provided on fedora. Since Conrad Meyer has recently taken
over sdcc packaging from Trond Danielsen. He was kindly asked whether he
is interested in packaging eclipse-sdcc as well. Still waiting for an
answer.
Package eclipse-sdcc http://eclipse-sdcc.sourceforge.net/
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/ticket/87>
Fedora Electronic Lab <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab>
Design, Simulate and Program electronics.
14 years, 4 months
[Fedora-electronic-lab] User documentation (was Re:Dead Upstream what should we do ?)
by Chitlesh GOORAH
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> Just want to discuss this further as our list of packages is growing day-by-day:
Yes userguides are currently one of your weaknesses. Let's create
another thread for this as we definitely got to find a suitable
solution for the long term.
> 1. Whatever documentation made for a particular software can be pushed
> upstream, so we keep track of only one set of sources. We will do
> documentation in LaTeX or DocBook, so we abstract content with
> presentation, and it will greatly help us in the long run.
+1 documentation should be pushed to upstream
I would tend to opt for LaTex as most of our upstream developers like
to keep their documentation in text format.
Having that said, what should we do for other tools which upstream
ships loads of documentation in OOo formats e.g kicad-doc ?
As we know Latex gives one the opportunity to create documents in any
type of format e.g pdf, dvi, ps ...
If we are to ship the same contents in different formats, we should
also bundle all the plugins for these formats. In FEL-12, I didn't
think about this and by default (on the livedvd) one cannot read .dvi
files with evince, because I missed the package evince-dvi on the
livedvd (sorry by the way :) ). The more we add such type of
dependencies to the livedvd the more
* time we have to allocate for the livedvd's testing
* time we have to allocate for package reviews
* the size the livedvd will be.
* the more dependencies they will pull.
So here a decision should be made. If it was for me, pdf format is
enough. What do you think ?
> 2. In Yelp, we can provide links to all relevant installed package
> documentation? If that can be done, it will only be linking to the
> respective files? or else we will need something similar in the lines
> of .desktop files that can simply pin-point to where the doc/, man/,
> info/ pages for each software/tool that is shipped, and are
> independent of desktop environments.
I have no idea if linking to specific files is possible.
In the wiki pages I'm editing on
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/wiki/Digital, I'm
pointing to these type of commands :
$ man XXXXX
or
$ rpm -qd XXXXXX
example in : https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/wiki/Digital/iverilog
Pointing to specific files would be great for the user, but hard on
us. Each time upstream add/remove docs, the packager will have to
update this yelp correctly.
> 3. We will also need to provide documentation on suggested workflows
> with various tools that are shipped, so people can follow it.
This is coupled with your #2. Either we do it in
* latex directly and output one big PDF which we can package
separately so that it can be shipped on the livedvd and be updated as
any other package, ( we could possibly add the release notes and the
flyer in that package as well)
* or in yelp as in #2.
If in #1, we choose latex, I would favour latex here too. What do you think ?
"Design flows" is one of FEL's strengths. It would be difficult to
push this upstream as many tools of different upstreams will fall in
different flows. Hence we have to maintain it ourselves in our git.
However we have to ensure it can also easily available so that other
distributions can use that "Design flows" doc as reference.
Chitlesh
14 years, 4 months
[Fedora-electronic-lab] [Fedora Electronic Lab] #82: Package logisim
by fedora-badges
#82: Package logisim
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
Reporter: scottt | Owner: chitlesh
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 13
Component: FEL | Version: devel
Keywords: |
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
http://ozark.hendrix.edu/~burch/logisim/
* Description: Logisim is an educational tool for designing and
simulating digital logic circuits and can be used (and is used) to design
and simulate entire CPUs for educational purposes. Currently used by
students at [http://ozark.hendrix.edu/~burch/logisim/usage.html colleges
and universities around the world] in many types of classes, ranging from
a brief unit on logic in general-education computer science surveys, to
computer organization courses, to full-semester courses on computer
architecture.
* License: GPLv2+
* Requires: Java 1.4 or later (The prebuilt jar does run using Fedora's
openjdk)
* NOTE: the source code is distributed in an unusual way and is included
in the "src/" directory of the same prebuilt jar file
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/ticket/82>
Fedora Electronic Lab <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab>
Design, Simulate and Program electronics.
14 years, 4 months
[Fedora-electronic-lab] PACKAGERS HEADS UP :release notes 13 and separate .sty for layout
by Chitlesh GOORAH
Hello there,
On the request of Peter Cliford of gEDA, I've separated the layout of
the release notes 13 from the contents :
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/browser/release-notes/F-13
1) The customized pseudo package is releasenotes.sty. I'm not a latex
guru. It is now free from graphics except the logo. If anyone can
improve it so that it becomes portable he/she is welcome :) The colour
of the layout can be customized.
2) I would appreciate if packagers can update this
FEL13ReleaseNotes.tex accordingly when they are updating their
packages.
Thank you.
Chitlesh
PS: While discussing with PeterC, I thought about asking our upstream
to adopt this latex package so that it would be like a brand of the
opensouce EDA developers (of course without the fel logo). This came
to me, since lately more corporates are opensourcing one or two of
their tools, but they are claiming to their customers that they are
the leader in opensource software. I feel it as an insult for our
upstreams who are working hard to fix bugs and add new features during
their free time. So a generic brand of the opensource EDA developers
would remind users that there are a bunch of people who are investing
their time too for opensource EDA. what do you think ? is it feasible
?
Chitlesh
--
Chitlesh GOORAH
Fedora Electronic Lab Architect
http://spins.fedoraproject.org/fel
14 years, 4 months
[Fedora-electronic-lab] Dead Upstream what should we do ?
by Chitlesh GOORAH
Hello there,
Shakthi has recently encountered a situation where I think upstream of
his package is pretty non-responsive, that we can call it dead
upstream.
I went to see on sourceforge to see how many of the EDA tools's
development were pretty much dead. I was surprise to see my bright
ideas unachieved.
So the question is
As a community driven and non-profit opensource EDA leader, what should we do ?
I would like to hear from you how you would like to contribute to
solve this situation.
As far as I'm concerned, I would rather want to take over the upstream
responsibilities and little by little migrate the code/features to an
active upstream of existing opensource EDA software. In other words,
improve the existing supported opensource EDA tools.
It will also be very interesting for new developers who don't actually
know what to contribute to the opensource community.
Kind regards,
Chitlesh
14 years, 4 months