This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Orphan packages
- From: John Dallaway <john at dallaway dot org dot uk>
- To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- Cc: ecos-maintainers at ecos dot sourceware dot org
- Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 09:46:19 +0000
- Subject: Re: Orphan packages
- References: <4984BCDC.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4984CFFB.3010906@eCosCentric.com>
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.
> 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.