Please, can someone replace the SSL sertificate at dev.openwrt.org?
Viewing dev.openwrt.org is impossible in Chrome. Chrome does not even
allow to add a security exception. Firefox complains but, for the time
being, allows to add a security exception.
On 27 September 2017 at 22:43, Val Kulkov
oving demo certificates from the
build directory. The demo certificates are not necessary for compiling
or packaging openssl on OpenWrt.
[1] https://github.com/openwrt/packages/issues/5432
Signed-off-by: Val Kulkov
---
package/libs/openssl/Makefile | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/pa
On 19 January 2018 at 05:19, Karl Palsson wrote:
>> But I would not worry about making the lives of contributors
>> easier [since they come & go]. I would worry about making the
>> lives of core devs easier, since their number is rarely
>> changing, and they have to put in the effort.
>
> An examp
On 18 January 2018 at 19:49, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/19/2018 01:05 AM, Val Kulkov wrote:
>>
>> There is more than a handful of PRs currently bit-rotting in
>> openwrt/packages that are ready for merging, with all requested
>> changes in place sinc
On 18 January 2018 at 03:44, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi John, Alex,
>
> I have no problem with closing / autorejecting open tickets in patchwork
> as long as they somehow remain available for future reference.
>
>> To add here. Would it be possible/desire-able to add an auto-timeout
>> to patchwo
No problem with "use sendfile = yes" on bcm53xx platform,
arm_cortex-a9, LEDE SNAPSHOT r5297-bddffc5 (and preceding development
releases), running for a long time (weeks or months), used daily by
several users.
On 21 November 2017 at 04:34, Karl Palsson wrote:
>
> Rosen Penev wrote:
>> sendfile
What is the most appropriate forum for discussing issues related to
the community management of openwrt/packages?
Unless I am missing something, there is no forum, no wiki nor any
other place for discussing openwrt/packages other than the "Issues"
section at Github which is dedicated to discussing
Apparently, the SSL certificate for dev.openwrt.org has been revoked
or has expired: NET::ERR_CERT_REVOKED. As a result, it is not possible
to review tickets or do anything else at dev.openwrt.org at present.
However is in charge of openwrt.org these days, please update the
certificate. Thank you.
The support for alternatives in LEDE was introduced recently [1] to
address the issue where multiple packages attempt to install the same
symlink. The method for alternatives support in LEDE is different from
that of Debian. In LEDE, an alternative is an attribute of package’s
CONTROL file: [1].
T
On 15 May 2017 at 11:46, Yousong Zhou wrote:
> On 15 May 2017 at 23:29, Val Kulkov wrote:
>> Yousong, perhaps I was not clear. What I am suggesting is to change
>> the auto-allocation to start from 1000 rather than from 100 (1000 is
>> just a suggestion, it could be anyth
On 15 May 2017 at 11:12, Yousong Zhou wrote:
> On 15 May 2017 at 23:04, Val Kulkov wrote:
>> On 15 May 2017 at 10:59, Yousong Zhou wrote:
>>> On 15 May 2017 at 22:41, Val Kulkov wrote:
>>>> The auto-allocation of uid/gid emulates useradd/groupadd, picking the
>
On 15 May 2017 at 10:59, Yousong Zhou wrote:
> On 15 May 2017 at 22:41, Val Kulkov wrote:
>> The auto-allocation of uid/gid emulates useradd/groupadd, picking the
>> first unused uid/gid starting from 100. This works quite well on its
>> own, but there are about three
On 15 May 2017 at 09:46, Yousong Zhou wrote:
> On 15 May 2017 at 21:07, Val Kulkov wrote:
>> On 15 May 2017 at 02:30, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Daniel Golle wrote:
>>>> Hi Val,
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, May 13
On 15 May 2017 at 02:30, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Daniel Golle wrote:
>> Hi Val,
>>
>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 06:23:29PM -0400, Val Kulkov wrote:
>>> Is there any convention on the use of uid and gid when creating new
>>>
Is there any convention on the use of uid and gid when creating new
users or groups? Can someone point me to it, if it exists?
I noticed that two packages, icecast and postfix, compete for the same uid=87:
icecast's Makefile:
USERID:=icecast=87:icecast=87
postfix's postfix.init:
user_exists
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
t 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.
> On 12 May 2017 23:40, "David Lang" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
>>
>>> I should
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
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 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
On 22 December 2016 at 00:13, Russell Senior wrote:
>> "Florian" == Florian Fainelli writes:
>
>>> However, I also agree with Dave, Alberto and Stefan that a name
>>> change may be a really smart way to communicate the fresh start of
>>> the project, a reboot, especially if the new name rides
On 21 December 2016 at 17:01, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 12/21/2016 01:46 PM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>> On 12/21/2016 09:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, David Lang wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Kathy Giori wrote:
> From a PR perspective, I strongly sugges
Hi Jo,
>>> Part of the problem, I
>>> think, is the lack of clear and consistent (and visible) governance and
>>> communication makes the project unappealing for companies to be
>>> interested in paying developers to work on either. It's not enough to
>>> have code and commits, there needs to
23 matches
Mail list logo
