This patch introduces possibility to have checksums of all files installed from
packages calculated on build and be part of the package metadata. It could be
useful to verify everything installed properly and that there are no errors on
the storage.
Signed-off-by: Michal Hrusecky
---
config/Conf
On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
>> Dear OpenWrt community,
>>
>> spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the
>> project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both
>> vague and misleading and the LEDE p
>Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
existing project?
The hasty reasons given and the secret and abrupt severing of ties make me
wonder if a "follow the money" approach will yield more plausible an
On 5 May 2016 at 13:16, John Clark wrote:
>>Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
> the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
> existing project?
>
> The hasty reasons given and the secret and abrupt severing of ties make me
> wonder if a "fo
This patch introduces serial0 aliases in the ramips DTS files, which can then
be used to denote the active console instead of relying on bootargs.
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Galabov
—
diff --git a/target/linux/ramips/dts/LINKIT7688.dts
b/target/linux/ramips/dts/LINKIT7688.dts
index 2dfb98c..bb3
From: Sergey Sergeev
This patch adds support of Mikrotik yaffs2 filesystem image for kernel file
and tools/kernel2minor package.
We neede this to boot kernel through RouterBoot on new Mikrotik NOR flash
devices.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Sergeev
---
config/Config-images.in| 31 +++
On 05/05/16 02:02, Kathy Giori wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani
> wrote:
>> Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
>> I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders
>> of the critical resources and then re-organize it from scratch within the
>> O
I don't see the end of OpenWRT as a bad thing.
If LEDE is basically a fork but without the development bottlenecks that
seem to be affecting OpenwRT, then the change can be easily done by the
industry segment that uses OpenWRT for their products. In fact, I see it as
a good thing because it means t
Add support for the Observa VH4032N router.
It's a BCM6368 based board with 128MB RAM, 32MB flash.
Equiped with an onboard USB hub. This hub has the RST#
pin wired to the GPIO27 pin. For pulling the chip out of reset,
we use ephy_reset since there isn't specific code for this
function in the USB d
Hi,
On Thu, 5 May 2016, Bruno Randolf wrote:
On 05/05/16 02:02, Kathy Giori wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders
of the critical resources and then re-org
On 05/05/16 13:48, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> I would not call "all active OpenWrt core developers" have left the
> boat. Take a look at this [1] page - some of them are active, some of
> them are not, but calling an end to the project is an overstatement at
> least. Also, refer to the mail Mike sent o
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Bruno Randolf wrote:
>
> But as someone who is following, using, building upon and sometimes
> contributing to OpenWRT since ~10 years I can only say that the only
> developers who have been visible, reacting and committing stuff have
> left. I still wonder why, of
Hi Mike,
thank you for reaching out to us and for your interest in addressing
these issues.
On 2016-05-04 21:01, mbm wrote:
> Dear OpenWrt community,
>
> It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we read
> about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was no
On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
>>> Dear OpenWrt community,
>>>
[snip]
>
> One simple question:
> If LEDE team members are the ones who were suffering from some
> non-democratic decisions, why didn't
On 5 May 2016 at 17:43, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson
>> wrote:
>>> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
Dear OpenWrt community,
> [snip]
>>
>> One simple question:
>> If LEDE team members are the ones who
>>the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email
addresses somewhat undermines this
Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org email
addresses were deleted in retaliation for forking OpenWrt? Seriously?
How did you not think that wasn't going to go well
On 16-05-05 11:11 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email
> addresses somewhat undermines this
>
> Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org email
@openwrt.org actually
> addresses were deleted in retaliation for forking Ope
On 16-05-05 11:24 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 11:11 AM, John Clark wrote:
the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email
>> addresses somewhat undermines this
>>
>> Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org email
>
> @openwrt.org actually
On 05/05/2016 06:38 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede
guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
leadership privately that they were planning this venture.
If i read correctly the feedback from the LEDE guys (
There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede guys
should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt leadership
privately that they were planning this venture. The surprise announcement
must have felt very much like a stab in the back. "Et tu, brute?" and all
that.
On 16-05-05 11:38 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede
> guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
> leadership privately that they were planning this venture. The surprise
The problem is that LEDE is pretty much
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM Daniel Dickinson <
open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote:
> On 16-05-05 11:38 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> > There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede
> > guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
> > leadership privat
On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
[snip]
> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
> > welcome.
>
> Let's just say that there are strong personalities who haven't be
On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> [snip]
>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
>> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
>> > welcome.
>>
>> Let's just
I confess I am one of those people who has benefited much more than I
have contributed to the OpenWRT development group. I run a small company
in which I am the chief developer, administrator, customer support dude,
marketer, and salesguy. I would LOVE to be able to contribute more to
the OpenW
On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
>>> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork i
On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>>> [snip]
[snip]
>> When I say broken I mean I think openwrt was dying and I pointed out not
>> all that
On 5 May 2016 at 20:09, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson
>> wrote:
>>> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
[snip]
> [snip]
>>> When I say broken I me
On 16-05-05 01:49 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 20:09, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>>> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson
>>> wrote:
On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wro
Hi Daniel,
I already merged lynxis series now that I see your comment.
If you feel like it, it'd be nice if you point out the remaining
places where the name needs to be replaced and submit (a) patch(es).
Cheers
Daniel
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 02:03:43PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> If you'r
On Thu, 5 May 2016, Carlos Ferreira wrote:
I don't see the end of OpenWRT as a bad thing.
If LEDE is basically a fork but without the development bottlenecks that
seem to be affecting OpenwRT, then the change can be easily done by the
industry segment that uses OpenWRT for their products. In fac
On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
Setting up the LEDE project was our way of cre
Might I submit that my impression is that Kaloz (at least) holds
infrastructure hostage to maintain control, and that the fundamental
problem here is that OpenWrt is *not* democratic and ignores what people
who were ones visibly working on openwrt want and overrides their wishes
because he/they has
On 11/02/2015 11:16 AM, Hans Dedecker wrote:
> Set link_state for all device types via the device_set_link API as all
> devices are registered
> in the device tree list making it possible to always get the device via
> device_get.
> The decice link state parameter will now actually reflect the co
On 16-05-05 03:22 PM, mbm wrote:
> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
>> Set
On 2016-05-05 20:22, mbm wrote:
> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
>> S
mbm schrieb am 05.05.2016 um 21:22:
> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
Hi Josua,
On 04.05.2016 21:24, josua.maye...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Josua Mayer
Added gen_mvebu_sdcard_img.sh to create bootable sdcard images. It takes
the bootloader and partition images to create a bootable sdcard image.
Partition Layout:
p1: fat32: for kernel, dtb and boot config files if
Hi Andrej,
First let me thank you for taking the time to review my proposals!
Am 06.05.2016 um 02:04 schrieb Andrej Vlasic:
> Hi Josua,
>
> On 04.05.2016 21:24, josua.maye...@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Josua Mayer
>>
>> Added gen_mvebu_sdcard_img.sh to create bootable sdcard images. It takes
>>
>On 2016-05-05 20:22, mbm wrote:
>> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
>>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
>>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
Hi all,
Sorry for sounding off so much yet again. I've been trying to interpret
events with a severe lack of information and have unfavourable guesses
and impressions that may or may not be accurate.
I do know that some of the developers have a history of not getting
along, and that has hurt the
I also think that it is utterly unreasonable to think that the differences are
going to be resolved in the next few days/weeks. It took years to get to this
point, and there are some very significant differences of opinion. There is
going to need to be time for one side or the other to be proven
Hi all,
I know other community members of complained about the lack of
information about the reasons for the fork (they and I don't think
LEDE's official announcement really provides enough information to
really understand the situation) and I especially do badly in a vacuum -
I tend to strain to
I think David Lang makes a lot of sense; it took years to reach this
point, better to carry on independently, but working together as much as
can be managed, and let time both settle the dust and demonstrate which
ideas really pan out.
Add to this that with years of toxic arguments (as acknowledge
On 05/05/16 19:16, OpenWrt wrote:
#20982: jffs2-error / nanostation M5 xw / r47658
+
Reporter: bittorf@… | Owner: developers
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone:
Component: packages |
Below is the message referenced in the previous email, so that it makes
more sense, but please remember:
> Add to this that with years of toxic arguments (as acknowledged by both
> sides) behind this, there's likely to be too much acrimony in
> explanations given.
>
> Much as not knowing is someth
I like to take decisions based more on "Realpolitik" than on
ideology/feelings. I have no side and no feelings for any of people
involved. I just want to have a good router distribution.
What is a OSS project? It is the sum of work of people. So, the future of a
project lies on how much people wil
You may be right that OpenWRT is doomed, but we have seen time and time again
that OpenSource software is not a zero-sum game.
Yes, if OpenWRT does nothing, it will struggle, but that's unlikely to be the
case.
For that matter, even with no new manpower, OpenWRT could just copy everything
th
48 matches
Mail list logo
