Re: lwIP upgrade to CVS HEAD

[Simon Kallweit <simon.kallweit@intefo.ch>]

John Dallaway wrote:
> There's some scope for improving the dependency info. For example,
> CYGIMP_LWIP_MEMP_MEM_MALLOC could specify:
> 
>    requires { CYGINT_ISO_MEMALLOC != 0 }
>    default_value { CYGINT_ISO_MEMALLOC != 0 }
> 
> Many of the protocol components and options are also likely to "require"
> either CYGPKG_LWIP_TCP or CYGPKG_LWIP_UDP.
> 
> There may also be some scope for active_if constraints to clarify the
> relevance of certain options. For example, could CYGPKG_LWIP_NETCONF be
> made "active_if !CYGPKG_LWIP_DHCP"? This may not be possible if the
> static networking address definitions are still required for correct
> compilation when DHCP is enabled.

I'll have a look at them tomorrow. There are lots of small improvements 
to be made with dependencies and constraints.

> Finally, I would make the display strings of the numerous protocol
> support components and options just a little more verbose. For example:
> 
>   "DHCP" -> "DHCP support"
>   "ICMP" -> "ICMP support"
> 
> and so on.

Done.

> There are currently 27 items directly under the lwIP package node in the
> tree. Perhaps there is some scope for further grouping of these nodes to
> give the tree more depth and less breadth. For example, a "Protocol
> support" component of "flavor none" containing the various protocol
> components?

I have reorganized the whole CDL quite a bit. Please check out the new 
hierarchy and give me some feedback.

> OK. Send me a tarball of the updated package when you're ready to start
> collaborating and I'll check it in on a new branch.

It's still in the git repo. Please get the current version from there, 
I'll still send you a tarball once I'm ready.

I will also look into sequential support, as there are no words from 
John Eigelaar. I think I can get do the basics myself.

Simon