From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21903 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2009 09:46:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 21895 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2009 09:46:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (HELO mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) (81.103.221.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:46:29 +0000 Received: from aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20090201094626.FOBN4080.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 09:46:26 +0000 Received: from cog.dallaway.org.uk ([213.106.81.244]) by aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP id <20090201094626.IXIK22934.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@cog.dallaway.org.uk>; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 09:46:26 +0000 Received: from cog.dallaway.org.uk (cog.dallaway.org.uk [127.0.0.1]) by cog.dallaway.org.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n119kJom026291; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 09:46:20 GMT Message-ID: <49856F6B.7060308@dallaway.org.uk> Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:46:00 -0000 From: John Dallaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Larmour CC: ecos-maintainers@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: Orphan packages References: <4984BCDC.2000200@dallaway.org.uk> <4984CFFB.3010906@eCosCentric.com> In-Reply-To: <4984CFFB.3010906@eCosCentric.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 Hi Jifl Jonathan Larmour wrote: >> 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. OK. > 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. OK, but perhaps we should add corresponding package records (with suitable caveats in the description field) after branching for eCos 3.0. There are other packages in the repository which have a broadly similar status but have a package record so people are much more likely to be aware of their presence. > 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. ACK. Any users of the package will be aware that it's not a current package due to the lack of a package record in ecos.db. Of course, the code will still be in the CVS attic. John Dallaway