bin2c: move to utils to be same as other build tools #177
Conversation
|
Any reason we shouldn't apply this? The original fork was deleted, but I've recovered the commit from Github and it builds okay - at least under Linux. |
|
Yes. Sorry, I should have replied sooner, but I finally had a chance to make sure I was correct. The patch itself is fine, however, what it accomplishes is not something I want done. bin2c is only used for building sys, and is needed to build sys. If sys was just part of the kernel, then moving to utils would be the proper thing to do, however, sys is actually meant to be a sub-module and so needs to be buildable outside of the kernel tree. (So I want sys to support multiple DOS kernels and be generally useful outside of just FreeDOS kernel - hence the old support to build with DRDOS branding for Enhanced DRDOS project. Other FD kernel developers wanted sys to be tiny and more or less not concerned about support for other DOS kernels; quite understandable. So that is why the OEM bootsectors and other items are only conditionally built. Now I would like to have moved sys completely out of the kernel source tree, but again, it was desired to keep its minimal needed functionality with the kernel. My plan is to have sys a separate program that builds with full support of other DOS kernels, but be embedded as a submodule in the kernel tree and build only the minimal version when built during kernel building. However, I took too long to do this and now the in-kernel version has advanced past the separate module and I need to merge the changes into there before I can make it a submodule here.) Long story short, I appreciate the patch, but it goes against my plans for sys. |
|
Ahh, yes I remember now that having sys as a submodule was discussed before FDOS/sys#3 |
No description provided.