Hi all,
I've recognized I have to do something about my impulse emailing and
have just finished implementing a technical solution that requires me to
verify that really do want to send the mail, and verification can't be
done until a configured amount of time has elapsed.
Hopefully this will keep
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 21:19 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> > > Let's just save such non-sense sense of culture and expectation
> > > discussion in another place.
>
> Perhaps the issue is the notion of a monolithic culture - that is *not*
> what meant. There are variations and subgroups, and i
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 20:57 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 08:45 +0800, Yousong Zhou wrote:
> > >
> > > To a certain extent you yourself acknowledge individual opinion (with
> > > you over a beer comment), but you seem to think that such a view of
> > > individual opinions
On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 08:45 +0800, Yousong Zhou wrote:
> >
> > To a certain extent you yourself acknowledge individual opinion (with
> > you over a beer comment), but you seem to think that such a view of
> > individual opinions are not as valid in the public domain, whereas our
> > expectation is
On 25 May 2016 at 07:56, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 18:18 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 23:57 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > Hi,
>> > >> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
>> > >> LEDE but OpenWrt core
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 23:57 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
[snip]
> Hi,
> >> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
> >> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so on?
> >>
> > This is my personal opinion and this was not somehow internal
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 18:18 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 23:57 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> [snip]
> > Hi,
> > >> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
> > >> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so
> >
On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 00:23 +0300, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
[snip]
> > I do not plan to contribute much to OpenWrt any more and I do not know
> > if I can commit anything any more, at least it looks like I was kicked
> > from the openwrt-hackers mailing list without informing me.
>
> I believe LEDE
Hi,
On 05/24/2016 10:31 PM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
As it looks like the IRC meeting will not happen, because not so big
interest by the people not already involved in LEDE and problems finding
a time, lets discuss on the mailing list like suggested by Jow.
The point you are missing is that som
On 24 May 2016 at 18:51, Eric Schultz wrote:
> I think this is a great idea! I very much support a move to Github; despite
> it's issues, it's just where development is happening today. Keeping a
> non-Github channel for submitting patches is also a great idea I think.
>
> My free-software side wo
On 24 May 2016 at 22:31, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> As it looks like the IRC meeting will not happen, because not so big
> interest by the people not already involved in LEDE and problems finding
> a time, lets discuss on the mailing list like suggested by Jow.
>
> Currently it looks like only Luka i
On 24 May 2016 at 23:31, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As it looks like the IRC meeting will not happen, because not so big
> interest by the people not already involved in LEDE and problems finding
> a time, lets discuss on the mailing list like suggested by Jow.
>
> Currently it looks like onl
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 16:20 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 16:46 +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> > Hi Luka,
> >
> > this is fantastic news!
> >
> > I'd be very interested in your future progress on the CI front.
> >
> Let's just not make the mistake other projects make
add lede-dev
On 05/24/2016 10:31 PM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As it looks like the IRC meeting will not happen, because not so big
> interest by the people not already involved in LEDE and problems finding
> a time, lets discuss on the mailing list like suggested by Jow.
>
> Currently it
Hi,
here's a few numbers we gathered with our buildbot setup:
We currently need roughly 35GB per target when building OpenWrt plus the
entire package world and currently there are roughly ~70
target/subtarget combinations in the OpenWrt tree.
If fast build tests are desired then the only way to
Hi,
As it looks like the IRC meeting will not happen, because not so big
interest by the people not already involved in LEDE and problems finding
a time, lets discuss on the mailing list like suggested by Jow.
Currently it looks like only Luka is working on OpenWrt as he committed
many patches fr
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 16:46 +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Luka,
>
> this is fantastic news!
>
> I'd be very interested in your future progress on the CI front.
>
Let's just not make the mistake other projects make and turn CI into a
an excuse to not have proper releases and a stablisation
On 05/24/2016 04:57 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2016-05-24 16:48, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> The patch adding SPI flash mmap read capability does not compile due to
>> missing
>> m25p80_rx_nbits() function. Move it to bcm53xx patch directory, where the
>> patch
>> adding this m25p80_rx_nbits() funct
On Tue, 24 May 2016, Luka Perkov wrote:
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:06:13 +0200
From: Luka Perkov
To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org, openwrt-us...@lists.openwrt.org
Subject: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PROPOSAL] move OpenWrt codebase to Git and GitHub
Dear OpenWrt mailing list readers,
as the subject sa
I think this is a great idea! I very much support a move to Github; despite
it's issues, it's just where development is happening today. Keeping a
non-Github channel for submitting patches is also a great idea I think.
My free-software side worries about using something non-free like drone.io
for
On 05/24/2016 04:57 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2016-05-24 16:48, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> The patch adding SPI flash mmap read capability does not compile due to
>> missing
>> m25p80_rx_nbits() function. Move it to bcm53xx patch directory, where the
>> patch
>> adding this m25p80_rx_nbits() funct
The UCI parameter neighgcstaletime allows to control how much time will
STALE entries be kept in the neighbour table for both IPv4 and IPv6.
Signed-off-by: Alin Nastac
---
device.c | 14 ++
device.h | 4
system-linux.c | 38 ++
3
On 2016-05-24 16:48, Marek Vasut wrote:
> The patch adding SPI flash mmap read capability does not compile due to
> missing
> m25p80_rx_nbits() function. Move it to bcm53xx patch directory, where the
> patch
> adding this m25p80_rx_nbits() function resides.
This doesn't make any sense to me. The
Add patch with the DT overlay support into the DTC package.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut
---
...ripts-dtc-Update-to-version-with-overlays.patch | 642 +
1 file changed, 642 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
package/kernel/dtc/patches/0001-scripts-dtc-Update-to-version-with-ove
Add package with the DT compiler v1.4.1 .
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut
---
package/kernel/dtc/Makefile | 36
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 package/kernel/dtc/Makefile
diff --git a/package/kernel/dtc/Makefile b/package/kernel/dtc/Makefile
Backported from mainline
2016-02-19 Jakub Jelinek
Bernd Edlinger
* Make-lang.in: Invoke gperf with -L C++.
* cfns.gperf: Remove prototypes for hash and libc_name_p
inlines.
* cfns.h: Regenerated.
* except.c (nothrow_libfn_p): Adjust.
Signed-off-by: Marek V
Update the U-Boot package to upstream 2016.05 version. This version
improves overall performance of the platform, since it fixes cache
problems that prevented the cache from operating fully in previous
releases.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut
---
package/boot/uboot-socfpga/Makefile|
The patch adding SPI flash mmap read capability does not compile due to missing
m25p80_rx_nbits() function. Move it to bcm53xx patch directory, where the patch
adding this m25p80_rx_nbits() function resides.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut
---
.../045-mtd-devices-m25p80-add-support-for-mmap-read-requ
Hi Luka,
this is fantastic news!
I'd be very interested in your future progress on the CI front.
If drone.io is able to accommodate the resources required for building
the entire OpenWrt then it sounds like a good solution for other
projects too.
Regards,
Jo
Dear OpenWrt mailing list readers,
as the subject says I'd like to make proposal to move the OpenWrt
codebase to Git. This was already discussed before [1] and now when
there are no blockers [2] for this change I'd like that we as a
community move forward with this switch.
Also, I'd like to propo
This includes a fix for building against uClibc:
http://git.openwrt.org/?p=project/procd.git;a=commit;h=9a6f83d3c168523ac7b898ae481c2fd8c501d6a6
Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin
Cc: John Crispin
---
package/system/procd/Makefile | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
31 matches
Mail list logo
