On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:06 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > On 26/2/21 4:49 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > > The stand-alone repository is very close to completion now and I could > > use the networking01 test with the standalone repo and it successfully > > runs on pc-qemu. > > Fantastic news. > > > The following are the links to the branches with the > > final version of the commits and I would really appreciate a review > > and suggestions on what else needs to be done (I'm not sending patches > > as they're big and would hit the devel limit): > > I am fine reviewing the changes in the repos. > > > RTEMS: https://git.rtems.org/vijay/rtems.git/log/?h=devel-no-libnet > > Looks good. The only observation is a bisect will probability break as the > nfsclient depends on rpc but I am OK with now things are. > > I checked rtems_waf and I think it is OK dealing with no networking defined in > the RTEMS opts header. > > > rtems-net-legacy: > > https://git.rtems.org/vijay/rtems-net-legacy.git/log/?h=main > > Would calling lnetwork.py netlegacy.py be a better match for that name? Closer > to the repo naming. > > Do the new python files need to pep8 formatted? :) > [ https://gitlab.com/ita1024/waf/-/tree/master/playground/pep8 ] > > In bsp_drivers.py is there a waf node way to find the sources rather than a > python os walk? > [ https://waf.io/apidocs/Node.html#waflib.Node.Node.ant_glob ] > > Should the README reference rtems_waf and all the configure options it > supports? > > Do we need a LICENSE file? > > > > > There are at least two things that need to be done: > > 1. Shift the tests like mghttpd01 that use the libnetworking stack, to > > the standalone repo like networking01 > > OK > > > 2. There are still codes that use the #ifdef RTEMS_NETWORKING. What do > > we want to do about those? > > How many BSPs/places/areas are we talking about? > > Would it be practical to add a cgit link to a ticket and then post an email to > user and devel stating those interested in BSPs x,y,z to review the ticket? We > then wait a week and after that the remaining defines are removed. > > Do we have a ticket for this task? > https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3850
I'll let Vijay answer the rest. > > Apart from these two points above, do the commits and the standalone > > repo look OK (close to mergeable)? > > For me this is very close and a welcomed change for RTEMS 6. Really nice work. > > Thanks > Chris > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel