Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Reply-To:	<Jan DOT Schormann AT BrainLAB DOT com>
From:	"Jan Schormann" <Jan DOT Schormann AT BrainLAB DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: FDA-conform validation - any hints?
Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:21:39 +0200
Message-ID:	<KCEOLMMHICICJKHPFOALAEBADDAA.Jan.Schormann@BrainLAB.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<61f6f4390504111150124d7f3d@mail.gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	12 Apr 2005 10:21:39.0425 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A0BD510:01C53F49]
X-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-104.1 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,IN_REP_TO,MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,RCVD_IN_ORBS,USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Jim and Gary,

thanks for your hints. Maybe I'm unnecessarily nervous.

I'm still working on a good definition for "enough"
testing around the intended use, and to what level of
detail the intended use needs to be described. With
your comments, I'm more confidently facing the FDA-
challenge now with what we have. Now I'm curious on
the auditor's feedback - only a few weeks left :-)

Not to forget: Many thanks for the effort to all of you
who make this tool, Cygwin, working. It's not so easy to
make my company give something in return, but one day
I will.

So long,
	Jan.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Drash [mailto:jim DOT drash AT gmail DOT com]
> Sent: Montag, 11. April 2005 20:51
> To: Jan DOT Schormann AT brainlab DOT com; cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: FDA-conform validation - any hints?
>
>
> Jan:
>
> I work for a very large FDA-regulated company. Our FDA IT
> audits have
> been centered on having documented processess and
> appropriate sets of
> test protocols to show compliance to those processes.
>
> Your validation efforts around GNU tools must describe
> what is your
> intended use and how you would test that.  Please note
> that this is
> around your use of a given piece of software not anyone elses.
>
> So given that you are using some GNU tool as part of your process,
> then you the to have the proper work instructions and
> scope statements
> around your use of the tool.
>



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -