From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10930 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2009 22:26:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 10922 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jan 2009 22:26:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from hagrid.ecoscentric.com (HELO mail.ecoscentric.com) (212.13.207.197) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:25:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ecoscentric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A1D3B4003D; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:25:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.ecoscentric.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yVDpaqmegnlp; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:25:55 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4984CFFB.3010906@eCosCentric.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:26:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.1.fc3.4.legacy (X11/20060515) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Dallaway CC: ecos-maintainers@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: Orphan packages References: <4984BCDC.2000200@dallaway.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <4984BCDC.2000200@dallaway.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-01/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 John Dallaway wrote: > eCos maintainers > > There are currently 4 eCos packages in the repository with no > corresponding package record in ecos.db: > > CYGPKG_HAL_OPENRISC at hal/openrisc/arch > CYGPKG_HAL_OPENRISC_ORP at hal/openrisc/orp > CYGPKG_DEVS_FLASH_OPENRISC_ORP at devs/flash/openrisc/orp > CYGPKG_DEVS_FLASH_SST_39VF400 at devs/flash/sst/39vf400 > > Such orphan packages will not be present in the forthcoming release, but > does anyone have a good reason to keep any of them in the repository at > all? If these packages might be useful to someone then they should each > have a corresponding package record in ecos.db which includes details of > their status. Otherwise, even regular eCos users may not be aware of > their existence. If no-one cares about these packages, I suggest we > remove them from the repository for reasons of consistency. I know there are outstanding patches for the openrisc stuff stuck way way back in the patch backlog. The packages should not be deleted. I know from the lists that some people have been using the openrisc port, which means they must be using them with the patches applied. I definitely don't expect we will reach the point of reviewing (with possible subsequent modifications) the patches before 3.0, so I think the status quo will have to do. The latter package appears obsoleted by the SST_39VFXXX package so can probably go, although I have slight hesitation to do this because third-party ports could be using it. Doesn't seem worth keeping though. Jifl -- eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos experts Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571 Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071. ------["The best things in life aren't things."]------ Opinions==mine