On 11/3/21 5:14 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:48 AM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org > <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> wrote: > > > > On 11/3/21 1:11 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 11:00 PM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vi...@rtems.org > <mailto:vi...@rtems.org> > > <mailto:vi...@rtems.org <mailto:vi...@rtems.org>>> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:56 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org > <mailto:chr...@rtems.org> > > <mailto:chr...@rtems.org <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>>> wrote: > > > > > > On 10/3/21 3:51 pm, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 6:58 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org > <mailto:j...@rtems.org> > > <mailto:j...@rtems.org <mailto:j...@rtems.org>>> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021, 3:28 PM Vijay Kumar Banerjee > <vi...@rtems.org <mailto:vi...@rtems.org> > > <mailto:vi...@rtems.org <mailto:vi...@rtems.org>>> wrote: > > > >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 10:03 AM Vijay Kumar Banerjee > <vi...@rtems.org <mailto:vi...@rtems.org> > > <mailto:vi...@rtems.org <mailto:vi...@rtems.org>>> wrote: > > > >>> In this proposed set of patches, I have removed telnetd from > RTEMS and > > > >>> have placed it in the net-legacy repo, it seems like libbsd > uses > > > >>> telnetd as well. Do we want to keep it in RTEMS and remove it > from the > > > >>> legacy net repo? There are checks in for RTEMS_NETWORKING in > telnetd, > > > >>> to add rtems_bsdnet.h, how do we want to deal with that? In > the > legacy > > > >>> repo, we can just remove these checks and let them build. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Move it and remove rtems networking conditional. Freezes it > with > legacy > > stack. > > > >> > > > >> Just my opinion > > > >> > > > > Is there a different telnetd in libbsd? > > > > > > Yes ... > > > > > > https://git.rtems.org/rtems-libbsd/tree/rtemsbsd/telnetd > <https://git.rtems.org/rtems-libbsd/tree/rtemsbsd/telnetd> > > <https://git.rtems.org/rtems-libbsd/tree/rtemsbsd/telnetd > <https://git.rtems.org/rtems-libbsd/tree/rtemsbsd/telnetd>> > > > > > This seems to include rtems/telnetd.h > > Does the libbsd telnetd depend on the cpukit/telnetd? > > > > > > The longer term pseudo-goal of being able to (potentially) build > > > > multiple networking stacks and pick which one to link against > may also > > > > be a consideration at this stage. > > > > > > Are there issues? If there are issues do we know what they are? > > > > > > I guess the bigger question is what network services should remain in > > rtems itself and work with any stack. > > > > We have at least telnetd and the web server. If they build against the > > standard network headers, then they should work any stack that uses > > those. > > > > For maintenance, it would be preferable to only have one which all > > stacks use. But this means rtems itself could be built with network > > services and no stack. I guess this is preferable to having:our own > > cross stack network services package. > > > > + RTEMS kernel > > + pick your stack > > + RTEMS specific network services > > + Ports of standard network services (SNMP, NTP, ACE/TAO, etc) > > > > At this point, it concerns me to add more and more packages because we > > tend to not have automation to build/test as many beyond the core RTEMS > > as we should. > > > > Based on that alone, I'd prefer to unify "RTEMS specific network > services" > > under rtems.git for now. If the service is specific to the stack, put it > with it, > > If it is a third party package, it is an RSB issue. > > I think this should be "where they can". For example the NFSv2 client > depends on > RPC and that is different. I suspect this is why we need a copy with each > networking stack. > > The down side of having these services in rtems.git is no testing. You > cannot > create a test executable in rtems.git because you cannot reach up the > vertical > stack. > > > Maybe the answer is that there should be no network services in rtems.git. > > Clone and own remainder in rtems.git to legacy and libbsd. We can then lean > to freezing, patching, or replacing as appropriate for each stack. Legacy > leans > to freeze but I can see some fixes applied to a copy in both. > > But say we port a new webserver to RTEMS. I'm guessing it would go with libbsd > and we would ignore ir for legacy. > > We can revisit this with lwip. It may not be able to support some of these > services > anyway. If it can, we patch in two places. This stuff rarely changes.
All this sounds fine. > And as I say rarely changes, I expect a deluge of improved network services. > LOL Yeah I suppose it will. Oh well. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel