This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/osmocom-net-gprs@lists.osmocom.org/.
Harald Welte laforge at gnumonks.orgHi Neels, On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 01:29:27AM +0200, Neels Hofmeyr wrote: > If we really require to strictly treat git trees as *either* library *or* > program project, we would need to do a lot more splitting. It seems to me that > we unfortunately rather should have more complex helpers instead. ACK. I also don't see why users should have to deal with even more repositories just so that the maintainer can have simpler scripts. > I'll soon bump the new osmo-{msc,bsc,mgw,sgsn} repositories to version 2.0.0, > so I need to look at the new release process anyway. Let me comment on that in > a separate mail. I hope that I will thus gain a better understanding of the > difference or complexity from mixing libraries with programs. > (https://osmocom.org/projects/cellular-infrastructure/wiki/Make_a_new_release) > I still want some more tweaks to go into the new repositories before bumping, > but can review releasing now as good as any other time. You could also do a 1.99.0 before as an exercise :) > > > The osmo-sgsn rename is something I've been pondering in the laforge/osmo-sgsn > * I assume typo: osmo-ggsn > > > branch where the VTY is introduced. I've almost decided against it meanwhile, > > > given that > 90% of the code still is OpenGGSN code, and credit belongs to the > > > creators of that and not to Osmocom. > > If we are the sole maintainers now, it makes sense to embed openggsn in our > naming scheme of osmo-* and libosmo-*, especially when openbsc.git is gone. We > should still credit the origins in README and/or header comments of course. Ok, then let's aim for that. > There is some sense in separating lib(osmo-)gtp from the GGSN, i.e. that > building osmo-sgsn only needs the GTP lib and not the GGSN binary. But I have > listed numerous similar instances above, so no real reason to split. I agree, no split (for now). > IOW, install libosmo-gtp and osmo-ggsn from a joint osmo-ggsn.git. But I'm > unsure about: if we rename libgtp to libosmo-gtp, do we confuse the hell out of > the rest of the world? So far I found 'libgtp' confusing ("is it osmocom??"). well, we didn't reinvent the wheel where it wasn't required (such as libgtp and libsmpp34). > In any case, this now is an ideal time to do renames like this, while we're > busy rejiggering half the core network anyway. It will just be part of the new > way that everyone needs to adjust to. I would time a rename with the introduction of significant user-visible changes. For the GGSN, this is when the VTY is introduced (ggsn binary to osmo-ggsn, which is already in a branch and could be merged any day. For libgtp, I would time this with introducing all the API/ABI breakage needed for maintaining pdp contexts per GSN and for supporting IPv6 transport layer addresses. This has currently not been a priority, though :/ Regards, Harald -- - Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)