* [RFC] lwip officially in ecos?
@ 2003-09-12 9:26 Jani Monoses
2003-09-12 10:19 ` Andrew Lunn
2003-09-12 14:13 ` Jonathan Larmour
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jani Monoses @ 2003-09-12 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ecos-maintainers
Hello all
I'd like to ask the maintainers' opinion on putting lwIP in ecos CVS.
I'm prepared to do all the legwork if the answer is positive.
lwIP is BSD-licensed and almost 'well-established' as the patch
submission doc requests. Although I intend to sign a copyright
assignment for other future contributions to ecos, IMO lwip is
unaffected because it is a separate BSD project but more importantly
because my contributions to it are minimal and quite a few people worked
on it (not as many as on the BSD stack or microwindows but still)
Jani
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] lwip officially in ecos?
2003-09-12 9:26 [RFC] lwip officially in ecos? Jani Monoses
@ 2003-09-12 10:19 ` Andrew Lunn
2003-09-12 10:25 ` Jani Monoses
2003-09-12 14:13 ` Jonathan Larmour
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Lunn @ 2003-09-12 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jani Monoses; +Cc: ecos-maintainers
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:14:52PM +0300, Jani Monoses wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I'd like to ask the maintainers' opinion on putting lwIP in ecos CVS.
My opinion is that its a good idea. It complements the other two
stacks well and people do use it.
How actively is the base of lwIP being developed. One down side of
integrating it into eCos, is that new developments of the upstream
package take longer to get into the eCos version. As it is now, people
will import the latest version into there own trees rather than use a
potentially old version in eCos. What would be good is if you could
put some scripts into the eCos package which automagically updated the
eCos version with the latest from Savanna. It then becomes a case of
running the script and then the test cases before committing it to the
eCos repository. jffs2 works like this.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC] lwip officially in ecos?
2003-09-12 10:19 ` Andrew Lunn
@ 2003-09-12 10:25 ` Jani Monoses
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jani Monoses @ 2003-09-12 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Lunn; +Cc: ecos-maintainers
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:18:55 +0200
Andrew Lunn <andrew.lunn@ascom.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:14:52PM +0300, Jani Monoses wrote:
> > Hello all
> >
> > I'd like to ask the maintainers' opinion on putting lwIP in ecos
> > CVS.
>
> My opinion is that its a good idea. It complements the other two
> stacks well and people do use it.
>
> How actively is the base of lwIP being developed. One down side of
> integrating it into eCos, is that new developments of the upstream
> package take longer to get into the eCos version. As it is now, people
> will import the latest version into there own trees rather than use a
> potentially old version in eCos. What would be good is if you could
> put some scripts into the eCos package which automagically updated the
> eCos version with the latest from Savanna. It then becomes a case of
> running the script and then the test cases before committing it to the
> eCos repository. jffs2 works like this.
There is a script which makes an EPK in the savannah CVS. This way from
time to time I (or anybody) can make that epk and send the diff
against the latest checkpoint to ecos-patches. But activity of lwip
development is not too high. Having it in ecos I hope that at least
testing and feedback if not development rate will increase a bit.
Jani
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] lwip officially in ecos?
2003-09-12 9:26 [RFC] lwip officially in ecos? Jani Monoses
2003-09-12 10:19 ` Andrew Lunn
@ 2003-09-12 14:13 ` Jonathan Larmour
2003-09-12 14:34 ` Jani Monoses
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2003-09-12 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jani Monoses; +Cc: ecos-maintainers
Jani Monoses wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I'd like to ask the maintainers' opinion on putting lwIP in ecos CVS.
> I'm prepared to do all the legwork if the answer is positive.
> lwIP is BSD-licensed and almost 'well-established' as the patch
> submission doc requests. Although I intend to sign a copyright
> assignment for other future contributions to ecos, IMO lwip is
> unaffected because it is a separate BSD project but more importantly
> because my contributions to it are minimal and quite a few people worked
> on it (not as many as on the BSD stack or microwindows but still)
I'm all for it. I do agree it is well-established enough to waive the
assignment for lwip itself. Of course changes to things outside of the
lwIP package itself may be a different story.
Jifl
--
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] lwip officially in ecos?
2003-09-12 14:13 ` Jonathan Larmour
@ 2003-09-12 14:34 ` Jani Monoses
2003-09-12 15:16 ` Jonathan Larmour
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jani Monoses @ 2003-09-12 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Larmour; +Cc: ecos-maintainers
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:13:39 +0100
Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com> wrote:
> Jani Monoses wrote:
> > Hello all
> >
> > I'd like to ask the maintainers' opinion on putting lwIP in ecos
> > CVS. I'm prepared to do all the legwork if the answer is positive.
> > lwIP is BSD-licensed and almost 'well-established' as the patch
> > submission doc requests. Although I intend to sign a copyright
> > assignment for other future contributions to ecos, IMO lwip is
> > unaffected because it is a separate BSD project but more importantly
> > because my contributions to it are minimal and quite a few people
> > worked on it (not as many as on the BSD stack or microwindows but
> > still)
>
> I'm all for it. I do agree it is well-established enough to waive the
> assignment for lwip itself. Of course changes to things outside of the
> lwIP package itself may be a different story.
The only changes outside the package are to io/eth/lwip which is already
in ecos.
A couple of clarifications about the submission:
- files in lwip have a BSD copyright text. I suppose there's no need to
add the ecos copyrigth text in each of them right?
- should I send a gzipped patch to ecos-patches or post a link to an EPK
(~200K)?
Jani
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] lwip officially in ecos?
2003-09-12 14:34 ` Jani Monoses
@ 2003-09-12 15:16 ` Jonathan Larmour
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Larmour @ 2003-09-12 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jani Monoses; +Cc: ecos-maintainers
Jani Monoses wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:13:39 +0100
> Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jani Monoses wrote:
>>
>>>Hello all
>>>
>>>I'd like to ask the maintainers' opinion on putting lwIP in ecos
>>>CVS. I'm prepared to do all the legwork if the answer is positive.
>>>lwIP is BSD-licensed and almost 'well-established' as the patch
>>>submission doc requests. Although I intend to sign a copyright
>>>assignment for other future contributions to ecos, IMO lwip is
>>>unaffected because it is a separate BSD project but more importantly
>>>because my contributions to it are minimal and quite a few people
>>>worked on it (not as many as on the BSD stack or microwindows but
>>>still)
>>
>>I'm all for it. I do agree it is well-established enough to waive the
>>assignment for lwip itself. Of course changes to things outside of the
>>lwIP package itself may be a different story.
>
>
> The only changes outside the package are to io/eth/lwip which is already
> in ecos.
An assignment for that would be desirable. Would you be prepared to assign
to me personally? You may have noticed that the maintainers (save Mark
:-)) have not got assignments to Red Hat - we have a mutual agreement to
assign to the FSF when that gets finalised (still not done, I'm afraid).
If you assigned to one of us, then we can check it in with our copyright,
not Red Hat's, and that will become the FSF's later.
> A couple of clarifications about the submission:
> - files in lwip have a BSD copyright text. I suppose there's no need to
> add the ecos copyrigth text in each of them right?
Personally I think it would be desirable. The EPK generation script talked
about with Andrew could add this as an automated step. This is simply out
of the general principle of changes to eCos requiring people to distribute
those changes.
> - should I send a gzipped patch to ecos-patches or post a link to an EPK
> (~200K)?
Either is fine.
Jifl
--
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-12 15:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-12 9:26 [RFC] lwip officially in ecos? Jani Monoses
2003-09-12 10:19 ` Andrew Lunn
2003-09-12 10:25 ` Jani Monoses
2003-09-12 14:13 ` Jonathan Larmour
2003-09-12 14:34 ` Jani Monoses
2003-09-12 15:16 ` Jonathan Larmour
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).