@rdmark The offset correction in this PR fixes a regression in the DaynaPort code, which resulted in an assertion being false.
The DaynaPort works fine for me again with this fix, but my test setup for the DaynaPort is not that good. Maybe you can also run a test?

@uweseimet Thanks, I will compile and test this on my Macs today.

BTW, we're aiming to tag the next release on 10/15, the upcoming weekend.

@rdmark I thought the next release was targeted for the end of the month and testing would start next eekend? This project tends to become a project with more aggressive release data than commercial projects. What a pity ...

@uweseimet In my opinion there is little cost in releasing early. Tagging a release is the primary mechanism we have in this project for getting people to install and test it. We have not had success in the past with calls for pre-release testing. In the worst case, the community finds bugs, and we fix them and roll forward.

What do you think?

@rdmark I see, and yes, you may be right. I would like a more predictable release planning, but I agree that from what we learned in the past without a release there won't be much testing (by others).
On the pro side it means that the changes (addressing two existiing tickets) I have prepared in two new branches can probably be merged after next weekend, and will not have to wait till next month ;-).

I did a brief test on my Power Mac 8600 and it seems to work fine.

@rdmark Thank you for testing. While testing the host services and printer device I noticed that when the very first command they receive is TEST UNIT READY they return MEDIUM NOT PRESENT: This is wrong, of course, because there is no medium. I just fixed that.

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

0.0% Coverage
0.0% Duplication