On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:13 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi. > > I think there is a little misunderstanding about this topic. > As many know here for OpenWrt doesn't quiet work as the same for a > company's project where you may have dedicated people to a project. > People work in the stuff they get interested and give some attention to > whatever is agreed by the project guidelines. > I am sure developers will continue to dedicate most of their time to the > newer and trunk versions and if agreed to extend LEDE 17.01 EOL to it as > well whenever is strictly necessary. It would be very nice for people still working on 17.01 to post their changes. > > The idea put is to extend LEDE 17.01 EOL a little while (not forever) > because it has been reported by a significant amount of people that > 18.06 is not an option anymore for a large amount of older but still > usable devices due its bigger footprint. Also to minimize the amount of > attention it may require the idea is not to have new features but only > critical security and bug fixes. If 18.06 was an option this would not > be necessary but as there has been significant improvements to this > version then extending LEDE 17.01 EOL becomes justifiable given the > number of active devices that still benefit for it. > > Best regards > Fernando > > On 12/11/2018 20:39, Alberto Bursi wrote: > > > > On 12/11/18 21:57, Fernando Frediani wrote: > >> Totally agree with Luiz. That was the idea behind this proposal and > >> you managed to even easier words. > >> > >> Alberto, the tiny subtarget you mentioned doesn't really seem to run > >> well or stably for 18.06 on many of these devices regardless the > >> flash size, that's the main point. > >> As mentioned there are many new devices still coming with 32MB of RAM > >> and which can take benefit of OpenWrt for various reasons and usages. > >> I think for many of us here are completely fine to put some extra > >> cash and buy a newer hardware to cope with OpenWrt evolution but the > >> reality is that majority of people are not. Another example I wanted > >> to put to illustrate is an ISP that has thousands of existing devices > >> with similar specs running, being still able to keep using OpenWrt > >> more securely while they start to introduce newer hardware to their > >> customer base allowing to make a more smooth transition to these more > >> powerful hardware. > > > > > > I quite frankly don't believe it's worth allocating what limited > > manpower there is. While I'm not a OpenWrt developer and I don't speak > > on behalf of the project, I really believe that you are > > underestimating the effort required behind even a basic LTS release > > like a "only core packages" or such. I think that if translated into > > man-hours (and therefore money) it would amount to much higher than > > just letting devices go EOL and have people replace them. > > > > The ISP can pay for someone to do this job if they think really need > > it (but imho it would be better to spend their funds in newer > > hardware, besides they should have planned for hardware obsolescence > > already). > > > > As a point of comparison, even Debian that is far larger than OpenWrt > > only agreed to extend the support period for its old release (which is > > a "mostly core packages" affair too, kernel, basic userspace and > > server software) after some sponsors showed up and paid for it. > > > > -Alberto > > > > > >> > >> Regards > >> Fernando > >> > >> On 12/11/2018 18:20, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> There are a significant amount of devices out there that has 4/32 > >>> specs. Even brand new ones. > >>> If there is stability issues with newer OpenWrt versions on those > >>> devices, we should rethink LEDE EOL. > >>> > >>> Maintenance burden is directly related to the amount of software to > >>> maintain. At the same time, low specs means they might have no > >>> interest in most packages. > >>> Maybe 15.05 life could be extend with a lower cost by limiting > >>> maintenance to a subset of packages (core? even less?). We could > >>> release LEDE 15.05.(x+1) LTS with feeds configured to use only that > >>> subset of packages. We could also limit the images to those low spec > >>> models. > >>> > >>> EOL is not really a big deal until it requires a new HW. Routers are > >>> things that die hard, even after a decade. It just doesn't seem right > >>> to turn old working hw into electronic waste because of software. > >>> Keeping old stuff running is even on of the reasons to use OSS. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> openwrt-devel mailing list > >>> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > >>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> openwrt-devel mailing list > >> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > >> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openwrt-devel mailing list > > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
