> On Aug 4, 2021, at 18:42 , Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > On 5/8/21 2:22 am, Christian Mauderer wrote: >> On 04/08/2021 18:09, Gedare Bloom wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 9:05 AM Christian MAUDERER >>> <christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: >>>> Am 04.08.21 um 16:55 schrieb Gedare Bloom: >>>>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 4:18 AM Christian MAUDERER >>>>> <christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: >>>>> My preference would be to leave the legacy doc where it is, >>>> >>>> Just a comment for that point: I know that the doc has been moved around >>>> a bit. But I think we should try to get all similar options onto the >>>> same "level". Otherwise if a user searches for "How to do networking >>>> with RTEMS" and he finds https://docs.rtems.org/ the only manual with >>>> "Networking" is the legacy stack. If it is on the same page (level, >>>> hirarchie, ...) like the headline "libbsd Networking and other cool >>>> stuff" or "lwIP", a user instantly can see that there is more than one >>>> option. >>>> >>> >>> That's a good point, but I want to keep the legacy stack separate from >>> the rest of the documentation to make it simpler to deprecate/obsolete >>> it. I don't see value in moving it, just to kill it in the next >>> release. AFAIK, we will strongly discourage anyone from using it in >>> rtems-6, and I'd like to kill it off moving forward once we feel >>> confident that lwIP is feasible for us to maintain. Your point about >>> marketing is well-taken though. >> >> OK. I didn't expect that we are that far that we already plan to (maybe) >> remove >> it in the next release. In that case I agree: It's not worth the effort to >> move it. >> > > Should something be added to the legacy manual indicating it's status? >
Is this realistic? I looked at the list of board support packages output by "./rtems-bsps" in RTEMS-6 and there are many old ones (M68K, old VME boards) that I assume use the legacy stack and aren't likely to be updated to use LWIP or "libbsd" and where the old stack works and has a small memory foot print. I understand not adding new drivers to legacy but deprecating the stack requires deprecation and freezing at a given release of those BSPs. That's OK with me, the use of these must be primarily maintenance. I think all these points need to be explained. Peter ----------------- Peter Dufault HD Associates, Inc. Software and System Engineering
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel