On 17.01.23 22:52, Chris Johns wrote:
On 17/1/2023 6:39 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 17.01.23 03:48, Chris Johns wrote:
On 16/1/2023 6:56 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 16.01.23 01:35, Chris Johns wrote:
On 13/1/2023 1:54 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 12.01.23 15:44, Kinsey Moore wrote:
On 20/1/2023 11:53 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2023-01-20 11:03 +1100, Chris Johns wrote:
>
>> I have been OK with the headers and tests being generated this way because
>> the
>> agreement is files in rtems.git can be manually edited and rtems-central has
>> to
>> track those changes. The
On 20/1/2023 11:22 am, Karel Gardas wrote:
>
> Sorry to hijack that thread, but correction is needed here.
>
> On 1/20/23 01:03, Chris Johns wrote:
>> The FreeBSD single repo is about the kernel and base runtime. The ports are
>> not
>> part of this so the analogy breaks down.
>
> Certainly
On 2023-01-20 11:03 +1100, Chris Johns wrote:
> It is good to know the amount of python is small. It should be easy to add :)
Agreed.
> I have been OK with the headers and tests being generated this way because the
> agreement is files in rtems.git can be manually edited and rtems-central has
Sorry to hijack that thread, but correction is needed here.
On 1/20/23 01:03, Chris Johns wrote:
The FreeBSD single repo is about the kernel and base runtime. The ports are not
part of this so the analogy breaks down.
Certainly all BSDs have separated ports repos, but AFAIK all of them
On 20/1/2023 6:01 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2023-01-19 08:21 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>
>> In rtems-central.git there are Python modules and scripts which generate
>> source, header, and documentation files from specification items. This
>> repository contains the pre-qualification
On 2023-01-19 08:21 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
> In rtems-central.git there are Python modules and scripts which generate
> source, header, and documentation files from specification items. This
> repository contains the pre-qualification support for RTEMS. By
> accident, a part of the
On 18.01.23 22:58, Amar Takhar wrote:
On 2023-01-17 08:39 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
The Python modules to work with specification items are in
rtems-central.git. This repository contains also a format specification
of the build items. We could add an action to a Github work flow to
check
On 19/1/2023 8:58 am, Amar Takhar wrote:
> On 2023-01-17 08:39 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
>>
>> The Python modules to work with specification items are in
>> rtems-central.git. This repository contains also a format specification
>> of the build items. We could add an action to a Github
On 2023-01-17 08:39 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
> The Python modules to work with specification items are in
> rtems-central.git. This repository contains also a format specification
> of the build items. We could add an action to a Github work flow to
> check the build item format for
On 17/1/2023 6:39 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 17.01.23 03:48, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 16/1/2023 6:56 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 16.01.23 01:35, Chris Johns wrote:
On 13/1/2023 1:54 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 12.01.23 15:44, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>> The other two patches
On 17.01.23 03:48, Chris Johns wrote:
On 16/1/2023 6:56 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 16.01.23 01:35, Chris Johns wrote:
On 13/1/2023 1:54 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 12.01.23 15:44, Kinsey Moore wrote:
The other two patches look fine to me. The use of dump() that results in this
patch
On 16/1/2023 6:56 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 16.01.23 01:35, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 13/1/2023 1:54 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 12.01.23 15:44, Kinsey Moore wrote:
The other two patches look fine to me. The use of dump() that results in
this
patch does several things:
On 16.01.23 01:35, Chris Johns wrote:
On 13/1/2023 1:54 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 12.01.23 15:44, Kinsey Moore wrote:
The other two patches look fine to me. The use of dump() that results in this
patch does several things:
* Removal of whitespace
This is fine for whitespace at the base
On 13/1/2023 1:54 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 12.01.23 15:44, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>> The other two patches look fine to me. The use of dump() that results in this
>> patch does several things:
>> * Removal of whitespace
>> This is fine for whitespace at the base level of indentation.
On 1/12/2023 10:38 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 12.01.23 16:52, Kinsey Moore wrote:
Annotation of expected test states with a description could get quite
repetitive, but I suppose that's better than losing the information.
I'm fine with this going in for now with a ticket to address this
On 12.01.23 16:52, Kinsey Moore wrote:
Annotation of expected test states with a description could get quite
repetitive, but I suppose that's better than losing the information. I'm
fine with this going in for now with a ticket to address this issue and
we can pull the annotations back in when
On 12.01.23 15:44, Kinsey Moore wrote:
The other two patches look fine to me. The use of dump() that results in
this patch does several things:
* Removal of whitespace
This is fine for whitespace at the base level of indentation. Whitespace
within an indented block may be more important for
Use yaml.dump(data, default_flow_style=False, allow_unicode=True) to
format all build items.
---
spec/build/bsps/aarch64/a53/optramlen.yml | 2 +-
spec/build/bsps/aarch64/a53/tsta53.yml| 22 +++-
spec/build/bsps/aarch64/a72/optramlen.yml | 2 +-
19 matches
Mail list logo
