On 16-03-30 02:48 AM, Michal Hrusecky wrote:
Yep, I understand all those. My question was whether upgrade all is disabled
just because of this ideological stuff and in hope that users wouldn't find and
try one of the posts I linked or whether there is anything really broken.
It's *not* ideolog
>
> please us an id between 0-999. ideally check what debian uses.
>
For most system services, with a very small number exceptions, debian
auto-assigns id < 500(?), and which service gets id depends on order of
package installation (which can be hassle with when trying to do network
filesystems)
On 16-05-04 12:25 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
> Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
> industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
> OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
> this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion
On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
>
> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>>
>> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
>> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as
>> being as concrete examples of companies contributing back t
On 16-05-04 07:01 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>>>
>>> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
>>> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow m
On 16-05-04 07:32 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
>
> Daniel I fully concur that industry "give back" is severely lacking.
> It seems to me that the bigger the company, the less likely they are
> to give back. One of the goals of the prpl Foundation was to help big
> industry members to better "see" that p
On 16-05-04 07:21 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-04 07:01 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
>>>
>>> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> It also seems to me (as an outsider) that those who do contribute are
> small open-sour
Hi,
How does one get in touch with Felix these days? n...@openwrt.org
bounces for me.
Regards,
Daniel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
On 16-05-04 07:59 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> Just curious to know by the names that signed the announcement of the
> new project being know OpenWrt Developers why weren't there enough votes
> inside OpenWrt to do this reboot and reorganize it completely under the
> LEDE Project ideas ?
I don't
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 project failed to identify its true
> nature. The LEDE a
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
>
> --John
>
>
> On 5/5/16 11:04 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>> 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 16-05-05 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
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 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
>> &
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 d
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:
>&
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 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
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
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
had guesses but now I'm second guessing my guesses, and really it
shouldn't be a guessing game, particularly since both sides claim to be
interested in transparency and the best interests of the community.
C'mon, can we have more than political statements, please?
On 16-05-05 11:42 PM
Hi Imre,
I'm doing this a lot lately. I'm sorry for publicly making guesses,
stating impressions that were not fair to you. I do not know what the
truth is and trying divine the information with the little information I
have doesn't work, and is not fair.
Sorry.
Regards,
Daniel
__
On 16-05-06 07:53 AM, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2016 18:24:09 +0200, 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
>
Hi List,
For your amusement. Anyone want to PandoraBox is using OpenWrt ;-)
(That is I have no affilation with PandoraBox; their CI screwed up).
Regards,
Daniel
Forwarded Message
Subject: Build failed in Jenkins: PandoraBoxFireware »
PandoraBox_Build_Beta » MT7628,Linux #14
On 16-05-11 06:08 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Looks like one recent commit:
[snip]
>
> breaks something for my boards (in particular arc770-based boards).
> I'm unable to activate console now. That's what I'm getting
> every time I press ENTER:
> ->8
On 16-05-11 06:08 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
>
> breaks something for my boards (in particular arc770-based boards).
> I'm unable to activate console now. That's what I'm getting
> every time I press ENTER:
> ->8-
> Failed to e
Hi all,
I had a patch that I submitted to the openwrt list sometime back that
launched multiple instances of dnsmasq, so long as the instances were
either tied to specific, non-overlapping, interfaces, or used different
dns port, but at least in the case of different interfaces it only
worked (to
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 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.
> >
>
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
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
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 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 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 s
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 a
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 Wed, 2016-05-25 at 01:13 -0700, mbm wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Let's see if any of the remaining OpenWrt devs at least publicly support
> > adopting them or some variation of them. As I've said before my
> > impression is that LEDE-style rules are not all that welcomed (and
> > that's based on th
Hi,
Might I humbly submit that given the different timezone and the fact
that LEDE claims to be wanting to be transparent, and that remaining
OpenWrt claims to be willing to accept such policies, that Jow's
suggestion of doing the discussion openly on the openwrt-devel and
lede-dev mailings lists
Sorry sent from the wrong email address, not sure where it it actually
got posted and where not.
Hi Oswald,
I'm sorry I suggested you were an unrealistic idealogue, and for
questioning your credentials; while I haven't verified them I'm sure you
do have more experience than I gave you credit for,
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 11:29 +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> hope you're doing well nowadays.
>
> I sincerely appreciate your participation in the discussions surrounding
> the whole OpenWrt/LEDE topic especially since it helps giving another,
> outside perspective to the entire is
iVBORw0KGgoNSUhEUgAAADAwAQMAAABtzGvEBlBMVEX///8AAABVwtN+eklEQVQY04XQzQ2EIBAF4IdMDIc5UAIlUIKlWMr0ZiMm28jOj+6iMXEOfBBmXgJAVLGlBkU3wcZ9I3Q7EdrAveowx6hZ0q6QJDsRnHlJwr+W4CHF7vLqTEenXABeUnSssbP8SdwdjTHEwcFDtQGKFuWjH8Lna8vAmfEF3NMPdAOsBscASUVORK5CYII=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=
On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 14:42 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I had a few emails on this topic I thought better of sending, but I'm
> > sure I'm not the only one wondering why the remaining OpenWrt devs have
> > not respon
On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 11:39 -0700, Michael Heimpold wrote:
> Hi,
> could you please elaborate, why do you think that /srv is a more FHS-
> compliant choice? I agree, that /usr is really the wrong place to put
> data there, but according to my understanding of the FHS, /srv is not
> even better, bec
Hi all,
In Chaos Calmer revision 46996 which bumps procd to latest git breaks
jails because Etienne's code fails to follow symlinks.
This is a major problem because especially for libraries symlinks are
what is reported int the ELF header (and for busybox 'binaries', or
other multicall binar
On 2015-10-07 11:16 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi all,
In Chaos Calmer revision 46996 which bumps procd to latest git breaks
jails because Etienne's code fails to follow symlinks.
This is a major problem because especially for libraries symlinks are
what is reported int the ELF header (
n previous version of Chaos Calmer (release
commit) on ar71xx and it was not necessary to add the symlink targets to
procd_jail_mount in that case.
Regards,
Daniel
On 2015-10-08 2:18 AM, John Crispin wrote:
On 08/10/2015 06:01, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi again,
It turns out the pro
, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Ok, I thought I had found the root cause but all I'm left with is that
symlinks aren't followed.
That is when procd-jail is installed and using procd_add_jail (or
manually executing ujail) on x86_64 using squashfs, on (for example)
/usr/sbin/ntpd (which is a
).
Regards,
Daniel
On 2015-10-08 11:46 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi all,
Reverting to 15.05 release fails to resolve the issue on x86_64 so I
suspect jails are simply broken on x86_64 due not following symlinks.
For some reason ar71xx does follow the symlinks and does not experience
this issue
Seems like we've been accumulating separate patches for adding
individual boards again, I'm going to clean up that stuff later. When
you've fixed the issues that I've pointed out already, please also
restructure your patches to add the mach files individually, then a
commit that integrates your bo
Should be cr5000-nocloud. Did you test this?
I compiled but had overlooked the missing image.
Also, the mtd layout looks wrong to me. Kill the kernel/rootfs
partitions, add just the firmware part in their place (without the
explicit offset), and let the kernel figure out the kernel/rootfs spli
On 09/12/15 04:07 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2015-12-09 21:47, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2015-12-09 21:02, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Seems like we've been accumulating separate patches for adding
individual boards again, I'm going to clean up that stuff later. When
you've fixed
Urgh, rebase combined the image generation for all three devices.
Do you want me to split and resend?
On 16/12/15 09:24 AM, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
I noticed Felix did the reorganization so as promised here is
the new patch series using the new organization. All images
have been te
:34 GMT+01:00 mailto:open...@daniel.thecshore.com>>:
From: Daniel Dickinson mailto:open...@daniel.thecshore.com>>
Note that not all of procfs sysfs log and ubus may be required for
actual
operation, they are just what strace reveals attempting to make
accesses.
Signed
Apparently I had a major keyboarding malfunction that caused important
parts of the patch to disappear during a rebase. I know they were there
because I tested on all the devices, now it doesn't build.
I am fixing and testing now.
Regards,
Daniel
On 16/12/15 09:31 AM, Daniel Dickinson
On 19/12/15 06:24 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2015-12-18 05:19, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
It can be convenient to separate builds into base system (included
in SDK), and task-oriented SDK builds (so that you limit the number
of packages which you must build at
Hi all,
I've been working on a patch for making POSIX ACL support and userspace
support of POSIX ACL and XATTR (extended attributes) a configuration
option at compile time and noticed something rather wonky:
While for POSIX ACL the default is disabled both at the kernel
level and in userpace
Hi all,
I just discovered something. It seems that in a package if you have a
config section that does select PACKAGE_condition_dependency then the
build succeeds but when you do opkg install, opkg does not 'know' about
the dependency.
That means if you have a situation like lldpd where you
Hi all,
I just thought I'd let you know I got thinking about the patch making
the config option to make console login the default on certain platform
and the undesirable fact that it alters the busybox config, and have
plans for a solution.
I also intend to use this same concept for two othe
Hi Felix,
On 22/12/15 09:03 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2015-12-22 06:02, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi all,
I just discovered something. It seems that in a package if you have a
config section that does select PACKAGE_condition_dependency then the
build succeeds but when you do opkg install
On 22/12/15 06:42 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi Felix,
On 22/12/15 09:03 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2015-12-22 06:02, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi all,
I just discovered something. It seems that in a package if you have a
config section that does select PACKAGE_condition_dependency then the
AGE_tar).
On 22/12/15 06:46 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2015-12-23 00:42, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi Felix,
On 22/12/15 09:03 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2015-12-22 06:02, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi all,
I just discovered something. It seems that in a package if you have a
config section tha
order of actions; and inittab comes from base-files which is
last thing done in the packages Makefile).
Regards,
Daniel
On 16/12/15 09:59 AM, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
Some devices like generic PC's and Raspberry Pi/Pi2 are much more trivial to
get har
Erg, reversed the texts of the commit and the comment. Will resend so
the commit message actually makes sense (but not tonight likely).
Regards,
Daniel
On 23/12/15 03:16 AM, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
This patch it mostly for SDK builds since base packages
Actually once root password is set is unncessary. Busybox login with no
password set allows passwordless login, so there is no issue.
Regards,
Daniel
On 23/12/15 07:24 AM, John Crispin wrote:
On 23/12/2015 13:05, Imre Kaloz wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:58:59 +0100, Daniel
serial device).
Regards,
Daniel
On 23/12/15 07:05 AM, Imre Kaloz wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:58:59 +0100, Daniel Dickinson
wrote:
I am reworking this (requiring console login) as couple of packages
for the packages feed, although it may require an image.mk or packages
Makefile
58:59 +0100, Daniel Dickinson
wrote:
I am reworking this (requiring console login) as couple of packages
for the packages feed, although it may require an image.mk or packages
Makefile hook in order to embed an appropriate inittab into the image
(since the inittab will need to be modified and we ne
who have no means of recovering from a bad flash.
Regards,
Daniel
On 23/12/15 07:35 AM, John Crispin wrote:
On 23/12/2015 13:32, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
I'm inclined to make the opt-out an image generation time decision
rather than configurable on the overlayfs for what I think a
On 23/12/15 06:49 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2015-12-24 00:38, Imre Kaloz wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:27:37 +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2015-12-23 16:27, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
* Imre Kaloz [23.12.2015 16:22]:
I'd hate to have some corner case result in bricked routers for
people who
I just noticed why failsafe was mounting root - I accidentally deleted
the failsafe lock which blocks until login session is complete.
Fixing now.
On 24/12/15 01:31 AM, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
Passwordless root login is undesirable by default
on any
Hi all,
I just thought I'd try to head of some confusion I may have caused
because I thought failsafe was mounting root. The actual issue is that
when I modified failsafe I accidentally delete the line that creates a
lockfile that causes boot process to block when failsafe is entered (so
tha
Hi Imre,
On 23/12/15 07:05 AM, Imre Kaloz wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:58:59 +0100, Daniel Dickinson
wrote:
I am reworking this (requiring console login) as couple of packages
for the packages feed, although it may require an image.mk or packages
Makefile hook in order to embed
Security is ultimately all about making it cost too much (of at least
time, money, effort, requirements, social factors) to break in. Even
so-called 'real' security vs. security in depth and security by
obscurity is really on the same spectrum.
That is why those who make bald statements about
Hi,
Just in case you look at the mailing list archives, it appears that
using git send-email for a patch series can screw up the mailing list
software when messages arrive before the initial message that all other
messages are made to be In-Reply-To.
cf. my 14 patch build system enhancements
rnal common code, but see how it could easily get abused, in it's
current form.
Regards,
Daniel
On 03/01/16 09:51 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-01-03 07:03, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
When using SDK default to avoiding rebuilding packages previou
Hi Felix,
I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that the current SDK
is not really an SDK but a 'Toolchain+'. Perhaps the current SDK should
be renamed to clarify that point, and a 'real' SDK created.
The current SDK is useless without ImageBuilder and/or package repositories.
R
On 03/01/16 01:01 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-01-03 18:53, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi Felix,
I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that the current SDK
is not really an SDK but a 'Toolchain+'. Perhaps the current SDK should
be renamed to clarify that point, and a
Hi all,
It'll probably be some time before I get further with the OpenWrt work
for a few reasons:
1) Personal priorities.
2) Feeling rather discouraged about not having may game back as much as
I had thought - the number of complaints (and phrasing thereof) about my
patches combined with a p
Hi all,
The patch for allowing user to configure their own opkg repos is not as
necessary once the 'flavour' configuration patch gets applied (although
that will require reworking the patch series it's part of), because if
you use the /%f as the tail of the configured packages path you get the
On 04/01/16 05:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
I'd like to suggest a simpler one, which is in line with the current
naming in OpenWrt:
The SDK is what builds software for an already running system.
It doesn't have to build images, it doesn't have to be used to build
full systems, it's just what you
On 05/01/16 10:49 AM, Joris de Vries wrote:
On 05 Jan 2016, at 16:04, Daniel Dickinson
mailto:open...@daniel.thecshore.com>>
wrote:
am of two minds about how to deal with the issue that having to build
the toolchain for an SDK before being able use the SDK is rather
painful (or at le
On 05/01/16 11:22 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
On 05/01/16 10:49 AM, Joris de Vries wrote:
On 05 Jan 2016, at 16:04, Daniel Dickinson
mailto:open...@daniel.thecshore.com>>
wrote:
am of two minds about how to deal with the issue that having to build
the toolchain for an SDK before bein
On 05/01/16 11:32 AM, Emmanuel Deloget wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Daniel Dickinson
mailto:open...@daniel.thecshore.com>>wrote:
On 05/01/16 11:22 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
It's actually target/linux that's the major issue when it comes to
Hi,
On 06/01/16 05:24 AM, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
> * Daniel Dickinson [06.01.2016 11:11]:
>> Not sure where you got those numbers. Did you also post the exact
>> hardware and software configuration, and testing methodology, and how
>> you did the timing and what numbers 14
Hi Felix,
Thank you for this! I will give it a whirl either before I head of to
dreamland or tomorrow morning.
Regards,
Daniel
On 06/01/16 01:39 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-01-06 17:52, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi,
On 06/01/16 05:24 AM, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
> * Daniel Dickin
Hi all,
I thought I would give you some numbers from my system before and afters
Felix's changes, since they are such an awesome difference.
First info about the the system:
* 8-core AMD 4.0 GHz FX processor
* 2 x ~500 MB/s SSD in RAID 1 configuration (and it was good thing too,
due to a ca
Hi Felix,
I've been thinking about the sourceful SDK and have some ideas on how to
implement, I just want to clarify one point:
Are you thinking the SDK should be like the buildroot where everything
(including tools and toolchain) is built from source, or are you
thinking tools and toolchain
included flavour), in order to guarantee that the compilation produces
identical libraries and such.
Regards,
Daniel
On 08/01/16 03:14 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi Felix,
I've been thinking about the sourceful SDK and have some ideas on how to
implement, I just want to clarify one point:
A
olchain to also
include relevant host tools, and not be strictly the compile toolchain.
Regards,
Daniel
On 08/01/16 03:14 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi Felix,
I've been thinking about the sourceful SDK and have some ideas on how to
implement, I just want to clarify one point:
Are you t
nd it is automagically
found and used if present) since we already know the name from the
config options and usual naming rules.
Regards,
Daniel
On 08/01/16 03:31 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Actually I've thought about the toolchain thing a little more and I have
an idea: make it possib
appropriate tarball.
Regards,
Daniel
On 08/01/16 03:41 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Oh, can't ship tools - some them end up with hard-coded paths which is
part of the problem.
Still using an openwrt toolchain tarball would eliminate with what would
be the lengthy part of a sourceful SDK build, an
Hi all,
I just thought I'd let you know that with some changes I am testing I
have reduced the >7m rebuild 'real' time to 4m (and before Felix's work
it was 14m for the same build). Basically I have a patch that let's you
build a selected set of profiles instead either all or one. For target
Hi Felix,
I think your latest commit will have an unexpected effect. It will come
into play whenever CONFIG_SDK=y, which includes when *building* the SDK,
not only when *in* the SDK.
For my own SDK development I added
config IN_SDK
bool
default y
in target/sdk/files/Config.in
so
Hi all,
There is a problem with the recent package rename from libtool to
libltdl - it break a lot of packages in the packages feeds (or at least
causes a great number of warnings; haven't tried ignoring the warning yet).
The issue occurs because metadata.pm assumes that the subdirectory name
A fix might be to have scan.mk emit a new field Source-Package for
.packageinfo from PKG_NAME and have metadata.pm use that source name
instead of the subdir name.
Regards,
Daniel
On 09/01/16 03:16 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi all,
There is a problem with the recent package rename from
KG_FIXUP:=libtool.
Build dependencies for libtool are generated in autotools.mk.
These have to be renamed to libltdl.
CC: Daniel Dickinson
CC: Felix Fietkau
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt
---
include/autotools.mk | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/inclu
Never mind, I'm confusing source package and binary package; I'm not
sure which this particular use depends on.
Regards,
Daniel
On 09/01/16 04:07 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
I do not believe this is the right fix:
The PKG_NAME is libtool so the the package name
should be found
Actually it turns out I was right: This depends on 'source' package not
binary package, therefore the patch I am verifying (doing a test SDK
compile to verify nothing broke) is required.
Regards,
Daniel
On 09/01/16 04:15 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Never mind, I'm confusing
101 - 200 of 404 matches
Mail list logo
