[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openembedded-core
Subject:    [OE-core] Adding cgdb to meta
From:       lpapp () kde ! org (Laszlo Papp)
Date:       2014-11-27 18:04:22
Message-ID: CAOMwXhNuu5_U_b-9X8JD+4tSG65++Y5h6tXFF6X_0jGpMsgJgg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Heh, I apparently inspired Ben who three days later added cgdb native
to meta-oe. Now, I gained enough motivation to retry this contribution
thing. Should I submit my cross version? We cannot use the native
variant due to our limited embedded system.

Martin, can you advise, please?

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12 August 2014 16:46, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
>>>> > That layer is too big. It is nearly everything that is rejected from
>>>> > meta;
>>>> > ok there are some dedicated layers, like meta-networking, but it feels
>>>> > like
>>>> > the last resort shelter where everything can just be thrown at.
>>>> >
>>>> > I do not think it is just us who do not wanna pull it into their
>>>> > project.
>>>> > Never mind, it remains to be a feature in our layer, which is closed
>>>> > source,
>>>> > then. It is a pity, but I will move along.
>>>>
>>>> People who think its too big are welcome to copy recipes out of it and
>>>> sync them manually - that's still better than not sharing the recipe.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am unfortunately not interested in participating to something that I
>>> have no intent to even test myself before submitting. meta-oe became a
>>> monster can which I personally would not like to deal with. That is said
>>> with due-respect. If its goal were reconsidered and split into several small
>>> layers, then mayhaps... But it is not there, and I am not sure if it was any
>>> soon...
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, this feature remains proprietary at the point of writing
>>> this. As long as it works for me, I will not be too much bothered, although
>>> I feel sorry for those who will need to reinvent the recipe, modulo
>>> stabilization.
>>
>>
>> But that is alright as long as everyone else finds the IMHO cumbersome
>> workflow with gdb OK for debugging. I think pleasant debugging is very
>> important for developers, and cgdb is still a command line based tool,
>> basically a thing wrapper on top of gdb with ncurses. It is not like "ddd"
>> and other heavy tools. That is why I thought with minor addition, meta could
>> be increase the software development experience; gdb is just way too raw to
>> be effective. But again, no one else might share this opinion, so let us
>> move on.
>>
>> Here is a reminder screenshot for those who do not know it, just in case:
>> http://cgdb.github.io/images/screenshot_debugging.png
>
>
> Alternatively, feel free to advise any sufficient debugging experience with
> oe-core. I will happily switch to any opportunities that reach this level.
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]