Hi all,
I would like to propose that we self certify NuttX with Open Chain
ISO/IEC 5230: The International Standard for Open Source License Compliance
ISO/IEC 18974: The International Standard for Open Source Security Assurance
Our licenses and SPDX identifiers are in place and would show our
com
Hi all,
I was considering to apply to the Open SSF Best practice badge
https://www.bestpractices.dev/en
this badge should should allow us to show that we use best practices in an
OSS project
Are there any concerns? Let's discuss
Best regards
Alin
Hello
I have obvious concerns that I will not repeat here.
We could apply to this once the current management issues are resolved,
as I think they will.
Sebastien
On 10/02/2025 10:12, Alin Jerpelea wrote:
Hi all,
I was considering to apply to the Open SSF Best practice badge
https://www.b
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:19 AM Alin Jerpelea wrote:
> Hi all,
> I would like to propose that we self certify NuttX with Open Chain
> ISO/IEC 5230: The International Standard for Open Source License Compliance
> ISO/IEC 18974: The International Standard for Open Source Security Assurance
> Our li
It looks like a good start. I really hope this tool will also be usable
with the future hardware testing farms.
Testing on riscv qemu is certainly important as it will provide info
about some kinds of regressions, but it is far from sufficient.
Thanks for this work.
Sebastien
On 08/02/2025
Hi Sebastian,
don't you think that such checklist would help identify the issues and help
us fix them?
Best regards
Alin
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025, 17:16 Sebastien Lorquet, wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have obvious concerns that I will not repeat here.
>
> We could apply to this once the current management
Hi,
Good point, it is interesting as a checklist, that is right.
The list is here, BTW: https://www.bestpractices.dev/en/criteria/0
it's long!
Glancing at it "in diagonal" as we say in french, it seems that we're
doing stuff in all these categories. But the devil is in the detail and
checkin
Here goes interesting paper with floating point arithmetic accuracy
comparison in various open-source libraries and compilers :-)
-- Forwarded message -
From: Paul Zimmermann
Date: Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 9:54 AM
Subject: Accuracy of Mathematical Functions
Dear all,
a new upd
Hi community
I have a question related to the implementation of poll() in the kernel and
drivers. I am implementing a driver with poll support (through
file_operations::poll) and have observed that "teardown" of the pollfds is not
performed if the task is killed (while task is blocked on a call
Kudos Lup!!
Best regards
Alin
On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 10:20 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> Aaah, so this is already runtime verification!! Awesome!! :-)
>
> The nuttx and nuttx-apps versions compatibility corss-cheks issue:
>
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/15791
>
> And general top level CI
Hi Tomek,
can you start a vote tread with the discussed changes so that we can
implement them
Thanks
Alin
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 8:00 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 7:50 PM wrote:
> > > One word answer: electron.
>
> No more explanation needed :D
>
> I use discord over web br
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 11:40 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> Google Summer of Code 2025 is coming, we already can and should
> register ideas for NuttX :-)
Okay, another idea that is quite important and security related is
Syscalls Parameters Validation.
We have several reports in this field. One is op
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:14 AM Alin Jerpelea wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was considering to apply to the Open SSF Best practice badge
> https://www.bestpractices.dev/en
> this badge should should allow us to show that we use best practices in an
> OSS project
> Are there any concerns? Let's discuss
Ve
I thiink that we should have romething like a list and we should vote +/-1
for each proposal then we summarize per change and we adopt the ones that
pass with +3
I fear that if we start 10+ votes we may miss to vote on some.
What do you think? what would be easyer?
Best regards
Alin
On Mon, 10
Hello world :-)
As discussed extensively in various mailing list threads we have
gathered all additional ideas for Contributing Guidelines update that
should improve NuttX Code Quality and self-compatibility / long term
maintenance.
Lets vote what we have. If anything is missing then lets talk ab
Hi Tomek,
Normally we create entries in the GSoC and people interested in those
topics will contact us.
I think for this year we have two suggestions:
* Improving the NXBoot to evolve NuttX as Bootloader (maybe add commands
compatible with U-Boot)
* Syscalls Parameters Validation (not sure if it
NuttX has support to LibmCS that already fixed those (and other issues)
https://gtd-gmbh.de/libmcs
But maybe those corrections from the article you cited could be applied to
our standard libm functions.
BR,
Alan
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 2:26 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> Here goes interesting pape
1: +1
2: +1
3: +1
4: +1
5: +1
6: +1
7: +1
8: +1
9: +1
10: +1
11: +1
12: +1
13: +1
14: +1
15: +1
16: +1
17: +1
Thanks :-)
Lup
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 7:39 AM Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> Hello world :-)
>
> As discussed extensively in various mailing list threads we have
> gathered all additional ideas
Hi Sebastien,
we will keep the discusion open here, until next week, then I will propose
a vote and we can proceed with the details how we implement it(if there is
interest and the vote passes)
Best regards
Alin
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025, 18:15 Sebastien Lorquet, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Good point, it is i
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 2:44 PM Alin Jerpelea wrote:
> Hi Tomek,
> can you start a vote tread with the discussed changes so that we can
> implement them
Sure Alin, will do in a free moment :-) Do we want to vote per change
separately or all of them in one place?
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 8:42 PM Alin Jerpelea wrote:
> I thiink that we should have romething like a list and we should vote +/-1
> for each proposal then we summarize per change and we adopt the ones that
> pass with +3
> I fear that if we start 10+ votes we may miss to vote on some.
> What do yo
Hi,
1: +1
2: +1
3: +1
4: +1
5: +1
6: +1
7: +1
8: +1
9: +1
10: 0 these are sometimes necessary
11: +1
12: +1
13: +1
14: -1 I would still apply it only for bigger changes
15: +1
16: +1
17: +1
Thanks for organizing the vote!
Michal
On 2/11/25 00:37, Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> Hello world :-)
>
> As disc
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 2:00 AM Kian Karas (KK) wrote:
> Hi community
>
> I have a question related to the implementation of poll() in the kernel
> and drivers. I am implementing a driver with poll support (through
> file_operations::poll) and have observed that "teardown" of the pollfds is
> not
23 matches
Mail list logo
