Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [LEDE-DEV] lede integration issues remaining from the detrius of cerowrt

2016-06-12 Thread Dave Taht
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I don't speak for the LEDE team, but it looks to me a lot of your > problem is that you are using LEDE/openwrt for far bigger iron than the > primary target (standard routers, including pre-AC non-NAND ones, which > ar

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] lede integration issues remaining from the detrius of cerowrt

2016-06-12 Thread Dave Taht
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Alan Jenkins wrote: > On 11/06/16 18:44, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> happy to see cake working today! thx all! >> >> In https://github.com/dtaht/ceropackages-3.10: >> The principal problem with fdisk nowadays is that very large (> 2TB, I >> think) devices are not suppor

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [LEDE-DEV] lede integration issues remaining from the detrius of cerowrt

2016-06-12 Thread Dave Taht
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Lars Kruse wrote: > Hi Dave, > >> D) https://github.com/dtaht/ceropackages-3.10/tree/master/utils/nanom5poe >> >> I don't know what landed upstream to control poe for the nano-m5 >> radios, if anything? > > I submitted a patch (that was accepted) for GPIO-based POE

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] lede integration issues remaining from the detrius of cerowrt

2016-06-12 Thread Alan Jenkins
On 11/06/16 18:44, Dave Taht wrote: happy to see cake working today! thx all! In https://github.com/dtaht/ceropackages-3.10: The principal problem with fdisk nowadays is that very large (> 2TB, I think) devices are not supported by it, and require a GPT capable tool. Is there a replacement in le