Re: Prioritizing and documenting libbsd development goals (was: libbsd updates)

> On Jan 25, 2023, at 10:55 , Gedare Bloom wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 2:25 AM Christian MAUDERER > wrote: >> >> On 2023-01-25 10:05, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> On 25.01.23 10:01, Christian MAUDERER wrote: On 2023-01-25 09:59, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 25.01.23 09:52,

Re: Prioritizing and documenting libbsd development goals (was: libbsd updates)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 2:25 AM Christian MAUDERER wrote: > > On 2023-01-25 10:05, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 25.01.23 10:01, Christian MAUDERER wrote: > >> On 2023-01-25 09:59, Sebastian Huber wrote: > >>> On 25.01.23 09:52, Christian MAUDERER wrote: > OK. Updated list based on Thomas

Re: minimum.exe showing as failure in some test reports

On 25.01.23 16:41, Joel Sherrill wrote: I see minimum showing up in some test reports on build@ as a failure. This is one example: https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/build/2023-January/039635.html What do we need to do to

Re: formal: Fixes Licenses

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:59 PM Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 23.01.23 13:01, andrew.butterfi...@scss.tcd.ie wrote: > > Patches to fix licenses for formal material are attached. > > > > The main issue was missing/wrong SPDX identifiers > > Thanks, I checked it in. > > With respect to the

minimum.exe showing as failure in some test reports

Hi I see minimum showing up in some test reports on build@ as a failure. This is one example: https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/build/2023-January/039635.html What do we need to do to handle this without duplicating a lot? Thanks. --joel ___ devel

leon3 validation test failures

Hi Looking at the build results for leon3, there are only a couple of failures but they are odd and I hoped someone could look into them. I think this one looks OK. https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/build/2023-January/039497.html [rtems-test] sparc/leon3: RTEMS_DEBUG, RTEMS_POSIX_API:

Re: Prioritizing and documenting libbsd development goals (was: libbsd updates)

On 2023-01-25 10:05, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 25.01.23 10:01, Christian MAUDERER wrote: On 2023-01-25 09:59, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 25.01.23 09:52, Christian MAUDERER wrote: OK. Updated list based on Thomas and Sebastians feedback:  From highest to lowest priority: - Real time

Re: Prioritizing and documenting libbsd development goals (was: libbsd updates)

On 25.01.23 10:01, Christian MAUDERER wrote: On 2023-01-25 09:59, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 25.01.23 09:52, Christian MAUDERER wrote: OK. Updated list based on Thomas and Sebastians feedback:  From highest to lowest priority: - Real time capabilities: No hard real time requirements for

Re: Prioritizing and documenting libbsd development goals (was: libbsd updates)

On 2023-01-25 09:59, Sebastian Huber wrote: On 25.01.23 09:52, Christian MAUDERER wrote: OK. Updated list based on Thomas and Sebastians feedback:  From highest to lowest priority: - Real time capabilities: No hard real time requirements for libbsd core, but we have to make sure that it

Re: Prioritizing and documenting libbsd development goals (was: libbsd updates)

On 25.01.23 09:52, Christian MAUDERER wrote: OK. Updated list based on Thomas and Sebastians feedback: From highest to lowest priority: - Real time capabilities: No hard real time requirements for libbsd core, but we have to make sure that it doesn't have a (relevant) negative impact on

Re: Prioritizing and documenting libbsd development goals (was: libbsd updates)

OK. Updated list based on Thomas and Sebastians feedback: From highest to lowest priority: - Real time capabilities: No hard real time requirements for libbsd core, but we have to make sure that it doesn't have a (relevant) negative impact on other subsystems. - Maintainability: How easy is