On 05/12/2017 12:48 PM, Stefan Peter wrote:
> On 12.05.2017 20:39, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 05/12/2017 10:51 AM, Val Kulkov wrote:
On 12.05.2017 15:07, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
>>> IMO the question should be "should the merged project be called OpenWRT or
>>> not".
>>
>> This is absolutel
On 05/12/2017 03:51 PM, Val Kulkov wrote:
> On 12 May 2017 at 18:37, David Lang wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
>>
>>> The remaining issue IMO, if you are referring to the decision about the
>>> name of the merged project, is whether the core team will give the wider
>>> community
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Mathias Kresin wrote:
> 12.05.2017 03:37, kyson lok:
>>
>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 6:18 AM, L. D. Pinney wrote:
+&spi0 {
+ status = "okay";
+
+ m25p80@0 {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-ce
On 12 May 2017 at 18:37, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
>
>> The remaining issue IMO, if you are referring to the decision about the
>> name of the merged project, is whether the core team will give the wider
>> community an opportunity to be heard, and whether they wou
12.05.2017 07:40, Adams:
---
.../utils/iwinfo/patches/002-wds-scan.patch| 26
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 package/network/utils/iwinfo/patches/002-wds-scan.patch
diff --git a/package/network/utils/iwinfo/patches/002-wds-scan.patch
b/packa
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
The remaining issue IMO, if you are referring to the decision about the name
of the merged project, is whether the core team will give the wider community
an opportunity to be heard, and whether they would listen.
how do you define the 'wider community'?
12.05.2017 03:37, kyson lok:
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 6:18 AM, L. D. Pinney wrote:
+&spi0 {
+ status = "okay";
+
+ m25p80@0 {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+ compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
+ reg = <0>;
+
On 12 May 2017 at 18:18, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> If the majority voted for the name OpenWRT what's the remaining issue then ?
>
> Fernando
>
22% voted for the name OpenWrt, to be exact. 5 votes out of 23. The
remaining issue IMO, if you are referring to the decision about the
name of the merge
The original post in this thread listed the remaining items to be
done/decided for a remerge.
David Lang
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Fernando Frediani wrote:
If the majority voted for the name OpenWRT what's the remaining issue then ?
Fernando
On 12 May 2017 23:40, "David Lang" wrote:
On Fri, 1
12.05.2017 23:45, Val Kulkov:
On 12 May 2017 at 17:40, David Lang wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
I should also note that it is extremely important to ask the right
question. You get what you ask for. Apparently, the developers voted
on this question: "Re-brand LEDE to OpenWrt?"
Hi Mauro,
Please open a ticket at https://github.com/openwrt/packages/
If you can put mwan3 version (not lede) that would help a lot
Regards
Etienne
2017-05-12 15:03 GMT-07:00 Mauro Mozzarelli :
> The last time I built lede it was r4041
>
> Today I updated to r4116 and mwan3 no longer works.
>
>
The last time I built lede it was r4041
Today I updated to r4116 and mwan3 no longer works.
In: cgi-bin/luci/admin/network/mwan
I have all interfaces showing offline and red with the following:
MWAN Interface Systemlog
*No MWAN systemlog history found*
Since sometimes feeds might not be upda
On 12 May 2017 at 17:40, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
>
>> I should also note that it is extremely important to ask the right
>> question. You get what you ask for. Apparently, the developers voted
>> on this question: "Re-brand LEDE to OpenWrt?" (see the link above)
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
I should also note that it is extremely important to ask the right
question. You get what you ask for. Apparently, the developers voted
on this question: "Re-brand LEDE to OpenWrt?" (see the link above)
IMHO the question should have been "Should the merged
Florian Fainelli schrieb am 12.05.2017 um 21:02:
> I don't think that mails sent to flor...@openwrt.org should be made into
> a mailing-list, but by the same token, I am making sure that this email
> is not used anywhere anymore such that if it has, it would be easy to
> make it happen and I would
On 05/12/2017 09:48 PM, Stefan Peter wrote:
>
> From the comments on this thread, I get the impression the quite some
> non-committing members of the community feel the same: The didn't even
> get asked about their opinion regarding the naming or the structure of
> the organisation that will res
On 12.05.2017 20:39, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 05/12/2017 10:51 AM, Val Kulkov wrote:
>>> On 12.05.2017 15:07, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
>> IMO the question should be "should the merged project be called OpenWRT or
>> not".
>
> This is absolutely not the question, this is only one of the questio
On 05/12/2017 07:02 AM, Paul Oranje wrote:
> Dear David, dear community,
> Please, see my comments below in-line.
> With the highest esteem,
> Paul
>
>> Op 12 mei 2017, om 02:04 heeft David Lang het volgende
>> geschreven:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Paul Oranje wrote:
>>
Op 11 mei 2017, om
On 05/12/2017 10:02 AM, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
> As a long time user of OpenWRT and recent “LEDE convert” I would also like to
> chime in on the naming and branding of the post-merge project.
>
> My employer and several of my industrial clients have used OpenWRT/LEDE
> extensively over the pas
On 05/12/2017 10:51 AM, Val Kulkov wrote:
> On 12 May 2017 at 12:02, Stefan Peter wrote:
>> On 12.05.2017 15:07, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
>>> The issue is that, although these are "open" projects, the participation
>>> is de-facto closed to a small group of core developers that make it
>>> particul
+1
Tapper
On 12/05/2017 16:53, Stefan Peter wrote:
On 12.05.2017 10:02, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
Not having WRT in the name, implying it would be for wireless routers, but
instead using the broad term “development environment” was helping to better
describe what the platform is and give it a
On 12 May 2017 at 12:02, Stefan Peter wrote:
> On 12.05.2017 15:07, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
>> The issue is that, although these are "open" projects, the participation
>> is de-facto closed to a small group of core developers that make it
>> particularly challenging for anyone outside to contribut
On 12.05.2017 15:07, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
> The issue is that, although these are "open" projects, the participation
> is de-facto closed to a small group of core developers that make it
> particularly challenging for anyone outside to contribute.
A solution to this problem could be to conduct
On 12.05.2017 10:02, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
> Not having WRT in the name, implying it would be for wireless routers, but
> instead using the broad term “development environment” was helping to better
> describe what the platform is and give it a more professional sound.
> With the new name the p
Hi Mentors and Developer community,
This is the 1st week's progress report of the project:
Implement NetJSON output in ubus (OpenWRT/LEDE)
1. To make myself familiar with the LEDE built an image without any
changes and loaded into the Raspberry Pi3.
2. Compiled SCAL package and understood its wor
On 12 May 2017 at 08:02, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
> I understand that the vote is done amongst the developers, the people
> actually running the project, this makes sense.
> But if the goal of the project is not only to keep yourself busy, but also to
> target a larger audience, it makes sense to
Merged into project/odhcpd; master branch:
https://git.lede-project.org/?p=project/odhcpd.git;a=commit;h=a2d8bf66186df66b6e2b645e59c23f8ae2be49c4
Thanks
Hans
___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/list
Dear David, dear community,
Please, see my comments below in-line.
With the highest esteem,
Paul
> Op 12 mei 2017, om 02:04 heeft David Lang het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Paul Oranje wrote:
>
>>> Op 11 mei 2017, om 14:18 heeft Imre Kaloz het volgende
>>> geschreven:
>>>
I think Edwin highlights one of the main issues associated with both
OpenWRT and LEDE
The issue is that, although these are "open" projects, the participation
is de-facto closed to a small group of core developers that make it
particularly challenging for anyone outside to contribute.
The vo
From: "Leon M. George"
Signed-off-by: Leon M. George
---
src/dhcpv4.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/dhcpv4.c b/src/dhcpv4.c
index 81e537d..21d94f2 100644
--- a/src/dhcpv4.c
+++ b/src/dhcpv4.c
@@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ static void handle_dhcpv4(void *addr,
I understand that the vote is done amongst the developers, the people actually
running the project, this makes sense.
But if the goal of the project is not only to keep yourself busy, but also to
target a larger audience, it makes sense to base some decisions on "market
research".
The name is ve
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed on that approach
That would be too bad.
It seems to me that the vote was held amongst a small group of heavily biased
people, of which a part was responsible for the split between OpenWRT and LEDE
in the first p
On 2017-05-12 12:47, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
> Hello Sergey,
>
> When using sysupgrade on an RB912 running a full LEDE 17.01.1 to install a
> custom image made with the image builder, the kernel is installed just fine.
> Before and after the sysupgrade I booted OpenWRT so I could mount the YAFFS
>> I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed on that approach
That would be too bad.
It seems to me that the vote was held amongst a small group of heavily biased
people, of which a part was responsible for the split between OpenWRT and LEDE
in the first place.
I am very sure if you would poll the lar
Hi,
>> OpenWRT better describes the wide range of specific system images
>> built for COTS products (which are mostly wireless routers) and is
>> a more suitable name for a final “product". You should consider
>> maintaining the LEDE name or somehow differentiatie between the
>> “development envir
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Daniel Golle wrote:
Hi Edwin,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:02:36AM +0200, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
As a long time user of OpenWRT and recent “LEDE convert” I would also like to
chime in on the naming and branding of the post-merge project.
My employer and several of my indu
Hello Sergey,
When using sysupgrade on an RB912 running a full LEDE 17.01.1 to install a
custom image made with the image builder, the kernel is installed just fine.
Before and after the sysupgrade I booted OpenWRT so I could mount the YAFFS
kernel partition and could verify that the kernel was
Hi Edwin,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:02:36AM +0200, Edwin van Drunen wrote:
> As a long time user of OpenWRT and recent “LEDE convert” I would also like to
> chime in on the naming and branding of the post-merge project.
>
> My employer and several of my industrial clients have used OpenWRT/LEDE
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Stijn Segers wrote:
David Lang wrote:
The (soon to be former) LEDE developers don't want @openwrt.org addresses,
so
providing a way to not break the existing addresses and not giving out new
ones
doesn't seem like it is upsetting to any of the developers.
Let's not get
When in ra server mode, configure nameservers passed in router
announcements from the dns value (which is already used by odhcpd).
This also fixes FS#677 by using the global IPv6 address of the router
instead of the link local address (if no nameservers are configured).
Signed-off-by: Arjen de Ko
On 12 May 2017 at 11:08, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki
>
> So far we were using host label as the instance name for every service.
> This change allows specifying it manually and fallbacks to the label for
> backward compatibility.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki
I forgot to speci
From: Rafał Miłecki
So far we were using host label as the instance name for every service.
This change allows specifying it manually and fallbacks to the label for
backward compatibility.
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki
---
V2: Rebased on top of recent changes. This should work fine now thanks
Davig Lang wrote:
The (soon to be former) LEDE developers don't want @openwrt.org
addresses, so
providing a way to not break the existing addresses and not giving out
new ones
doesn't seem like it is upsetting to any of the developers.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The thread title state
As a long time user of OpenWRT and recent “LEDE convert” I would also like to
chime in on the naming and branding of the post-merge project.
My employer and several of my industrial clients have used OpenWRT/LEDE
extensively over the past few years in many projects, ranging from routers and
acc
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Arjen de Korte wrote:
> When in ra server mode, configure nameservers passed in router
> announcements from the dns value (which is already used by odhcpd).
>
> This also fixes FS#677 by using the global IPv6 address of the router
> instead of the link local addres
45 matches
Mail list logo
