[PATCH 00/13] Replace mongoose with civetweb.

Mon Apr 25 15:25:01 UTC 2016

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Christian Mauderer <
christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de> wrote:

> Essentially I agree that it would be nice to build civetweb as an
> external library especially with the different network stacks in mind.
> But there are some points that keep me from doing it:
>
> 1. I have really no Idea what would be necessary to build it as an
> upstream project using RSB. If that are only something like three simple
> steps, it should be possible to squeeze it in the little time budget
> that is left for the project. If I first have to analyze and change a
> lot of RSB, it would be challenging.
>
> FWIW I think this can be a secondary goal. Switching over to the real
upstream project with proper licensing is important.

When we do this, we incur some burden of "retraining" users to consider
a webserver an external addon. But that is the direction I think we want
to head with httpd, telnetd, ftpd, etc. So it is a good long term goal.

> Chris, I think you know the RSB best: What steps do you think would be
> necessary?
>
>
Chris...

> 2. Currently there is one test case for mghttpd (libtests/mghttpd01).
> This is one of the few tests that check some networking functions in
> RTEMS. Further we should not loose the ability to test software when it
> is build with RSB. How would we handle tests for software in RSB?
>
>
That's a Chris question. We should aim to have tests which run with
either network stack for RSB built network services. This is a good
requirement on the plan to moving to separately built network stacks
and services.

Having thought about this, I am not opposed to seeing the patches
merged as long as it is clear what is just moving to the new upstream,
what are patches, the patches are submitted upstream and we push
to get them merged.

I realize you need a practical goal. I would like concurrence from Chris
and Gedare on the short and long term plans. If you can make any
progress on the long term plan, that's good but we should accept
the short term needed improvement.

Perfection is the enemy of the good enough.

> Kind regards
>
> Christian Mauderer
>
> Am 23.04.2016 um 15:07 schrieb Joel Sherrill:
> > I am really with Gedare and Chris that it would be better to treat this
> > as an upstream project. Use the RSB and track patches through RTEMS
> tools.
> >
> > It would be a good case to push the model of a single network service
> > supporting both stacks and begin the process of removing networking code
> > from the base RTEMS git repo.
> >
> > It would also push us to figure out how to rest RSB built packages.
> >
> > On Apr 22, 2016 12:05 AM, "Christian Mauderer"
> > <christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> > <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
> >
> >     Yes that's right. 05/13 just adds the unchanged sources from
> civetweb.
> >     Beneath civetweb.c and civetweb.h it also adds handle_form.inl and
> >     md5.inl. The last two files are included into civetweb.c. According
> to
> >     the documentation "The *INL* file extension represents code that is
> >     statically included inline in a source file."
> >
> >     And yes: The patch didn't get through. I have got a replay that "Your
> >     message to devel awaits moderator approval". The civetweb.c file is
> over
> >     300k and the mailing list seems to have a maximum of 256k. I hoped
> that
> >     one of the mail admins would approve the patch soon.
> >
> >     Am 21.04.2016 um 22:49 schrieb Gedare Bloom:
> >     > I think patch 05/13 probably adds civetweb.c and civetweb.h? But it
> >     > did not come through the mailman.
> >     >
> >     > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org
> >     <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>> wrote:
> >     >> P.S. might be worth it to open a ticket related to civetweb and
> >     >> #update it from these patches.
> >     >>
> >     >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org
> >     <mailto:gedare at rtems.org>> wrote:
> >     >>> Is the plan eventually to be able to use the upstream civetweb?
> >     or to
> >     >>> track it with our own copy?
> >     >>>
> >     >>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:49 AM, Christian Mauderer
> >     >>> <christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> >     <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
> >     >>>> This patch series replaces the mongoose webserver by its still
> MIT
> >     >>>> licensed fork civetweb.
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> Please note that I try to get some (currently two) of the
> patches
> >     >>>> directly into civetweb too. But I think that it might need some
> >     time and
> >     >>>> adaption till they are accepted. So I thought that adding them
> >     to RTEMS
> >     >>>> would still make sense as a working interim solution.
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> _______________________________________________
> >     >>>> devel mailing list
> >     >>>> devel at rtems.org <mailto:devel at rtems.org>
> >     >>>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
> >     --
> >     --------------------------------------------
> >     embedded brains GmbH
> >     Christian Mauderer
> >     Dornierstr. 4
> >     D-82178 Puchheim
> >     Germany
> >     email: christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> >     <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>
> >     Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18 <tel:%2B49-89-18%2094%20741%20-%2018>
> >     Fax:   +49-89-18 94 741 - 08 <tel:%2B49-89-18%2094%20741%20-%2008>
> >     PGP: Public key available on request.
> >
> >     Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     devel mailing list
> >     devel at rtems.org <mailto:devel at rtems.org>
> >     http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
> embedded brains GmbH
> Christian Mauderer
> Dornierstr. 4
> D-82178 Puchheim
> Germany
> email: christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
> Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18
> Fax:   +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
> PGP: Public key available on request.
>
> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20160425/6b3cbdb0/attachment-0002.html>