On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:34 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:27 AM Vijay Kumar Banerjee <vi...@rtems.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have prepared and rebased all the patches to the current master. Please >> review the commits. >> >> RTEMS patches: https://git.rtems.org/vijay/rtems.git/log/?h=devel-no-libnet >> RTEMS net-legacy patch to pull recent changes: >> https://git.rtems.org/vijay/rtems-net-legacy.git/commit/?id=2b4738734f9d678a458b64278c0ff95dea588b1e >> RTEMS libbsd patch to add telnetd: >> https://git.rtems.org/vijay/rtems-libbsd.git/commit/?id=6bda703964e8cbbf73cb21f52fb7ceeb3cb3a541 >> >> With these patches, the relocation work would be complete. I have tested all >> these patches are building with all the RTEMS bsps in bsp_defaults using waf. > > > Great! Is there any reason not to move the repo to the top level and delete > the networking from the main rtems repository? > It is: https://git.rtems.org/rtems-net-legacy/ -- I think he is asking to merge/update the repos. Vijay, I think you could send the net-legacy patch by itself to the list.
I think the big one is the RTEMS patches, and I'm not sure if the libbsd patches have been seen yet? @Vijay Can those be sent as an emailed patchset? > And to make a news announcements. > I think we had the announcement that it was pending, but yes it will be good to finalize that thread on the relevant mailing lists (users, EPICS-core). We think we hit most of the 'downstream' with those. > --joel >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> Vijay >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:43 AM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> 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
