The OpenWrt developers are proud to announce the final release
of OpenWrt Barrier Breaker.
___ __
| |.-.-.-.| | | |..| |_
| - || _ | -__| || | | || _|| _|
|___|| __|_|__|__||||__| ||
Your change completely disables reloading which breaks in case of wan
switching to a different interface or if lan interfaces are coming up.
I commited a change
https://github.com/openwrt-routing/packages/commit/8bc38fccc73b40e9599b897e335f2e7a5a67e879
which should avoid restarts in case wan inter
Merged with some modifications.
Thanks.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Hi Gianluca,
thanks for your patch. However instead of adding wrappers to every
single application I'd rather like us to add the optstring '-' extension
to musl as a patch.
Cheers,
Steven
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.
That change was actually intentional so 6rd is setup if its available
unless you disable it with iface6rd=0.
Cheers,
Steven
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-deve
NAK, this would break source-dest-routing for IPv6 (documentation seems
to be wrong here).
Maybe we should use RTA_PREFSRC for IPv4 and RTA_SRC for IPv6?
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/ma
Thanks, applied.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
On 03.12.2014 11:15, Hans Dedecker wrote:
Config support to force the IGMP host version on device level; possible values
are:
1|igmpv1: IGMP version 1
2|igmpv2: IGMP version 2
3|igmpv3: IGMP version 3
Thanks Hans.
However, I don't really see the point of the string logic, it s
On 03.12.2014 11:39, Hans Dedecker wrote:
Regarding the MLD version wouldn't it be preferable to have this as a
different UCI parameter as I could imagine different versions in use
for MLD and IGMP. Quite a lot of ISP's are still stuck to IGMPv2 in
their network while they're using MLDv2 for
Hi Tomer,
I am currently working on a kernel module which offloads traffic from
the Networking stack.
This is part of a project which optimizes IP forwarding for low end
routers that have weak CPU and low on memory.
Sounds interesting. Other approaches of speeding up forwarding are btw.
also
Hi Gergely,
my name is Gergely Kiss, I have recently started creating patches for openwrt
and I'm about to publish some packages to the packages repository (some ported
from oldpackages, others are brand new).
Sounds good, thanks. Please read and follow our guidelines when doing
pull request
Hi Gergely,
this is the wrong place to post package-related patches and issues.
Please do a pull requests here instead
https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pulls
and for issues please use: https://github.com/openwrt/packages/issues
Cheers,
Steven
_
nd, however our firewall tool currently uses
libiptables directly so I don't think it would work easily.
Cheers,
Steven
Best Regards,
Tomer
On Dec 14, 2014 7:08 PM, "Steven Barth" <mailto:cy...@openwrt.org>> wrote:
Hi Tomer,
I am currently working on a kerne
ly notify someone or something when
the high-level openwrt firewall is reloaded. In fact there is already a
user-script hook.
Cheers,
Steven
Best Regards,
Tomer
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Steven Barth wrote:
Hi Tomer,
Regarding the firewall package - its probably a dumb question
applied, thanks.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
applied, thanks.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
There were no firewall changes for quite a while really and IPv6
configuration hasn't been touched for quite a while either and if you
have ruled out the igmp_snooping as a source of error then thats a bit
confusing.
OpenWrt switched from using kernel-mode IPv6 RA handling (SLAAC) to
handling
NAK, unless you deal with all the "dnsmasq-dhcpv6 and dnsmasq-full
missing in opkg" tickets afterwards ;)
On a more serious note, some people depend on the precompiled stuff and
they would probably not welcome that change all too much.
___
openwrt-de
You can watch any repository you like. If something goes wrong its
probably either github's or your browser's (or its addons') fault.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openw
Thanks, unfortunately this doesn't compile for me:
ccache_cc -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wmissing-declarations -Wold-style-definition -Wformat=2 -O2 -Os -pipe
-mno-branch-likely -mips32r2 -mtune=34kc -fno-caller-saves
-fhonour-copts -Wno-error=unused-but-set-variable -msof
Thanks, applied.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
On 05.01.2015 11:28, Russell Senior wrote:
"Steven" == Steven Barth writes:
Steven> Thanks, unfortunately this doesn't compile for me:
Can you email me your .config?
I'll confess I only test-built it with uClibc.
Thanks. That is usually sufficient, though we are think
Our dnsmasq init script registers /tmp/dnsmasq.d as an additional
configuration dir, so you can place files there and restart it. However
I'm not sure as to how much we want netifd to do dnsmasq-specific stuff
or how we would do it.
Of course the bad thing here again is that dnsmasq doesn't su
Applied, thanks.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
What does that "sleep 60" do for you here? It doesn't look very sane to me.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Thanks, applied.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
All applied, thanks.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Applied, thanks.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Hello Jeff,
It's a bit of a shame it doesn't work with the current default uclibc,
however have you checked if it works with musl out of the box? That
being the other more embedded-friendly solution here.
Cheers,
Steven
___
openwrt-devel mailing l
Please post:
your complete /etc/config/network
the output of "ubus call network.interface dump"
so we can see what's going on on your system.
Your problem description is not really exhaustive.
Also note that dslite doesn't support ipaddr or netmask parameters since
RFC6333 specifies fixed IPv4
config interface 'wan6'
option proto 'static'
option ifname 'eth1'
option ip6addr '2001::50'
config interface 'lq'
option proto 'dslite'
option ip6addr '2001::100'
option peeraddr '2001::200'
option tunlink 'wan6'
In your dslite sectio
Try
config interface 'lan'
option type 'bridge'
option ifname 'eth0.1 bat0'
option proto 'dhcp'
config interface lan6
option ifname @lan
option proto dhcpv6
# option reqprefix no (uncomment if you don't need an IPv6 delegated
prefix)
Cheers,
Stev
Hello Arjen,
most likely, your DHCPv6 client implementation is faulty and you should
probably file a bug for more than one reason.
If the DHCPv6 server sends values for T1 and / or T2 which are valid the
client must honor them and not try to be "smart" about lifetimes of
addresses.
Besides
In that case, I have a lot of bug reports to file, because none of the
DHCPv6 clients I tried were happy with preferred lifetimes of 1 second
on their leases (which includes Windows 7, 8.1 and openSUSE 13.2).
Sorry, I cannot confirm this. I just tried it with both Windows 8.1 and
Debian test
This breaks clients that need fixed IPs (in my case, mostly webmail
clients).
I wonder why they are so sensitive to source-address changes since their
old address is still valid and not deprecated so there is no need to switch.
I would gladly send the DHCPv6 address with 0 preferred lifetime
Radvd isn't part of OpenWrt for a while. dnsmasq doesn't support
downstream delegation and its DHCPv6 features aren't well integrated if
you have a dynamic prefix e.g. delegated from your ISP.
Cheers,
Steven
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-de
The problem is that you try to be "smart" by abusing the ability to set
the address preferred lifetime lower than T1. I don't dispute that it
is allowed by the RFC, but it is definitely not recommended.
There is no formal requirement (not even a SHOULD) that says otherwise.
The recommendation
On 27.03.2015 10:41, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
On 26/03/2015 23:51, Steven Barth wrote:
Radvd isn't part of OpenWrt for a while. dnsmasq doesn't support
downstream delegation and its DHCPv6 features aren't well integrated
if you have a dynamic prefix e.g. delegated from
still work (since only the ULA-address
cannot be changed immediately).
Is that okay with you or do you see any other issues?
Cheers,
Steven
On 26.03.2015 20:38, Arjen de Korte wrote:
Citeren Steven Barth :
This breaks clients that need fixed IPs (in my case, mostly webmail
clients).
I wonder
Since I avoid ULA like the plague, this probably won't be a problem
for me and global IPv6 addresses will be served. But I'm not convinced
that favoring a ULA prefix (if available) over an ip6prefix is best at
all times.
Nothing is favored, DHCPv6 just hands out ULAs only (if one is there).
Applied, thanks.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Hi Kristian,
at first: thanks for your feedback. I really like the general idea of
this patch, however:
1) Instead of using the interface index to decide on interface metric, a
table-option is added to interfaces. This way, users are sure which tables will
be used for policy routing and can
Hi Thomas,
I don't think the DHCPv6 client is the right place to do this.
You should rather configure PPP and select the interface identifier in
its configuration as this patch would completely defeat the purpose of
IPv6CP.
Regards,
Steven
___
ope
On 18.06.2013 01:15, Thomas Bächler wrote:
You're confusing me even more - how does the patch relate to ipv6cp?
In ipv6cp, I am assigned a link-local address by the provider. I may be
wrong, but doesn't my peer expect that I use this link-local address in
its routing table in order to communica
On 18.06.2013 14:32, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:14:18PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
I think this change is useful (without having looked at the actual code),
for exactly these reasons. With the IPv6CP handshake, you'll arrive at
something the provider controls - but then i
Thanks for the hint. It is fixed upstream now. I will update the OpenWrt
revision when some more bugs pile up.
Cheers,
Stevem
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
On 25.06.2013 00:15, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 18.06.2013 14:57, schrieb Steven Barth:
Allright fine, you guys have convinced me.
I just commited a modified version of that patch to trunk.
Please test it.
On AA, there's a missing line
proto_config_add_string "if
Thanks for the report. It should be fixed now.
Steven
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Thanks. Should be fixed now.
Cheers,
Steven___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Hi,
thanks to you all for your contributions.
I've commited something based upon this in
https://dev.openwrt.org/changeset/37866
This also adds proper packaging for kernel-modules and iptables-modules.
I moved the IPv6-NAT stuff out of regular NAT-stuff as it doesn't really
fit in (many peo
I removed the lines with "lt 3.8.0" as they broke older Kernels, I deem
IPv6 NAT in those kernels to be not worth the trouble anyway. IIRC it
was introduced in 3.6 or 3.7 so it doesn't matter that much.
I think iptables 1.4.17 introduced IPv6 NAT but it got some fixes in
subsequent versions. O
NAK. The default configuration works well.
If it does not please try to tell use why.
You can set the reqprefix value if you like and if it makes your ISP
give you a better / bigger prefix.
The /60 on the interface does not interfere with RA or SLAAC, we still
only announce the first /64 out
I'm sorry but the @wan syntax does indeed work. It works for me and many
other people using the new IPv6 stack. Could it be that you are using an
old version of netifd for some reason? (e.g. you updated / installed
only some of the new IPv6 packages on top of the 12.09 release).
If there is st
http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/uci/network6#native.ipv6.connection
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Hi Bastian,
I just commited a fix although it wasn't really a race.
Please try with the latest revision.
Cheers,
Steven
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Hi Nathan,
I've seen this being reported by someone else already a few months ago
also involving Comcast (
https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=191916#p191916 ). It seems
they have a rather weird way of sending out Router Advertisements every
3 seconds at some locations which is causin
Hi Nathan,
actually it's not that easy. Especially if the contents are the same
this means an update. This is because most contents of the RA contain a
validity timer in seconds.
Thus if you sent 2 successive RAs with the same contents with a 3 second
difference the second RA increases the v
Hi Nathan,
I just pushed an update to netifd.
Could you please check if the current version improves behaviour for you?
Also alternatively could you please check in your /etc/config/6relayd if
compat_ula is set to 1 and if so remove it or set it to 0?
Cheers,
Steven
_
On 02.10.2013 07:35, Nathan Hintz wrote:
Hi Steven:
netifd eventually crashed:
Tue Oct 1 21:57:58 2013 daemon.notice netifd: wan6 (1382):
Segmentation fault
Could this be due to continuing to call "system_add_address(dev, a_new);"
without
ever calling "system_del_address(dev, a_ol
Sorry about the fuzz and thanks for the patch.
Applied in r38287.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Hello Hans,
thanks for the report. I put in on my todo list. I have a few other
netifd changes staged somehwere anyway and will hopefully be able fix
this issue soon.
Cheers,
Steven
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
htt
Hi Bastian,
I recently added openssl as a generic build dependency for OpenWrt as
part of the new package signing infrastructure thus I don't think using
openssl sha256 is problematic.
Can you give an example please where there is an openssl without sha256
support?
Thanks,
Steven
___
Hello Hans,
I finally commited a netifd update yesterday which should take care of that.
Regards,
Steven
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Hello Hans,
Thank you very much for your patches. I've commited them to the github repo and
will do some testing probably next week. If all works out i will get them live
afterwards.
Cheers,
Steven___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.ope
Hello Nathan,
Thanks for your patches. I already had a quick look at them and found that i
already addressed some of this in odhcpd which will replace 6relayd in the near
future. I will go through the others later again.
Cheers,
Steven___
openwrt-deve
Hello Hans,
could you please explain your patch again. I didn't quite get the
paragraph you've written. It seems the sentence is a bit garbled.
Thanks,
Steven
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/
Hello Gui,
thanks for your report. I just updated odhcp6c to generate the routes
and addresses in netifd in a better way. The old method seemed to have
some races that could lead to the behaviour you have seen. Could you
please retest with the new odhcp6c and see if that works better for you?
Ch
Hello Heiner,
thanks, however overriding the kernel behavior is intentional as its
handling of e.g. routes is very limited. Also getting address from both
the kernel and through dhcpv6 to netifd to the kernel causes conflicts
such as the ones you noted. If you want to use Kernel RA-handling pl
Hello Henning,
i find it very strange that your ISP doesn't offer public addresses on
the WAN interface however I think this is actually standards compliant
so we have to deal with it.
please see: https://dev.openwrt.org/changeset/40422
I added an option "weakif" which allows you to specify a
Applied, thanks. Will probably take care of AA later today.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Hi Gert,
i find it very strange that your ISP doesn't offer public addresses on
the WAN interface however I think this is actually standards compliant
so we have to deal with it.
It's called "IPv4 exhaustion"... DS-Lite is one of the way to deal
with it (which effectively gives you "only one NA
Hi Gert,
There has been quite a bit of discussion in the ISP camp regarding WAN
IPv6 addresses. It's not actually straightforward what to do as an ISP,
so multiple variants exist
- RA for WAN, DHCPv6-PD for LAN
- DHCPv6-IA for WAN, DHCPv6-PD for LAN
- "require use of an IPv6 addre
Hi Henning,
yeah that is another side-effect of your - well - "irregular"
ISP-behaviour. I will try to put it on the TODO but it's not very high
on the list as its more or less cosmetic, sorry I'm a little short on
time at the moment.
Cheers,
Steven
Applied, thanks. Will get into OpenWrt with next netifd-bump.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Hi Gert,
In regular OpenWrt ip6assign means that - as already written - a /60 (if
available) is taken from the DP and the assigned to the given interface.
That value was chosen rather arbitrarily. The first /64 of that DP is
handed out via RA and stateful DHCPv6 (IA_NA). The rest of the /60 (o
Hi Gert,
you are right its a bit unusual and you may very well consider it bad
practice and if I have enough time it will hopefully solve it in a
better way at some point.
The reasoning behind this is that this way the DHCPv6 (PD) server can
easily learn about the whole available prefix rang
Applied, thx.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Am 02.05.2014 21:00, schrieb Gert Doering:
Ah! So it's a "reservation" for downstream-DHCPv6-PD.
It's still slightly confusing, tbh, to see the ifconfig and route values
point the /60 towards the actual interface. But maybe that's just me :-)
- it certainly isn't causing problems, just to say
Hi Gert,
Am 02.05.2014 23:14, schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:56:07PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
... so, something I am missing... :-/
Oh well. First thing is "I should have looked at 'ifstatus wan_6'" which
indeed tells me "WAN is working":
root@OpenWrt:/etc/config# if
Just did a quick test with hnet against ISC dhcp behaving the same
(IA_PD-only) and it worked out fine.
Am 03.05.2014 07:59, schrieb Steven Barth:
Hi Gert,
Am 02.05.2014 23:14, schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:56:07PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
... so, something I am
Hi Gert,
well thanks for testing.
answers are inline.
Hi,
thanks for your help so far. (Side question: if people feel this is getting
off-topic for openwrt-devel, I'll take it offline. For now I keep the CC:
because I think other people might end up running into this, and google
might find
Hi Gioacchino,
it seems the kernel expects a big-endian value as vlan protocol, so you
should probably try wrapping cfg->proto in htons when passing it to
nla_put_u16.
Cheers,
Steven
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
h
Hi Matti,
thanks for the patches. A few notes though:
I don't particularly like the dhcp-approach. Including the script
directly looks hackish and also it wouldn't work for DHCP and RA/DHCPv6
in parallel. Instead I would suggest to bring up the interface without
any addresses and at the end of
Hello Developers,
it has been some time since our latest stable release, so we are
currently busy preparing the first RC for Barrier Breaker. But before we
want to do the actual builds we need to take care of the packages feed
which has been neglected for a quite a while. A lot of packages are
>btw. What is the policy on pushing on that repository? Should be
>commits
>restricted to the maintained packages or extend to any possible
>package?
You can commit / propose (via pull request) any packages you want to maintain
as long as the packaged version is still supported upstream and ha
Hello Jacob,
please note that we are not going to accept patches for the (old)
packages feed anymore.
See: https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=51078 and the referenced
mail for details.
If you like you can adopt this package and maintain it in our new github
feed: https://github.com/o
Hi Andre,
could you please add nettle-mini support and make this a build variant
instead of a config option, please?
Build variant has the advantage that we can precompile it as ipks
because we cannot enable dnssec by default.
Otherwise thanks for your work.
Cheers,
Steven
s for every
possible combination.
Cheers,
Steven
Am 16.06.2014 10:12, schrieb Andre Heider:
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Steven Barth wrote:
could you please add nettle-mini support and make this a build variant
instead of a config option, please?
Build variant has the advantage th
Hi Nikos,
Is there a reason for not having dnssec by default? If there is a way
to disable it, I believe it will only be beneficial to have it in.
The main problem here is that this increase the default image size
significantly plus we can't even reuse all the added crypto code because
none o
On the contrary I'd prefer if it doesn't. Nettle is an open project
under LGPL that anyone can contribute and can be reused by a variety
of software; polarssl is closed commercial project under a commercial
license with a GPLv2 exception.
Oh well, I sometimes have the feeling if its open-source
That sounds better, but on the other side users wanting only dhcpv6
then get quite a lot of DNSSEC bloat.
I don't have numbers at hand, but we could explore static
libnettle-mini linking?
No, I wasn't thinking about dropping the dhcpv6 variant just to add the
full variant as number 3 so we have
Applied, thanks.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Applied, thanks.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Ah sorry, seems I forgot to send a reply here.
I noticed your initial patch was mangled but since it was trivial I
applied it manually already:
https://dev.openwrt.org/changeset/41212
Thanks and Cheers,
Steven
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-d
Hi Ondrej,
thanks for your efforts. However we are not accepting patches for the
old packages feed any more. However feel free to import, update and
maintain the 2 packages in the new feed at
https://github.com/openwrt/packages. You can send a Pull Request there.
Cheers,
Stevem
Try this:
>uci add firewall rule
>uci set [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>uci set [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>uci set [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>uci set [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>uci commit firewall
Greetings
Cyrus
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
http://lists.
Am Samstag 04 Oktober 2008 00:40:12 schrieb Ben Pfountz:
> - correctly kills dnsmasq on stop
Wouldn't it be better to use start-stop-daemon instead of freaky ps, grep, awk
calls?
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
http://lis
> Is it, or will it some day get Luci driven to operate as seamlessly as
> native firmware upgrades?
Is this seamless enough:
http://dev.luci.freifunk-halle.net/sysupgrade.png
;-)
Greetings
Cyrus
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.open
> > thats why UCI was invented
>
> I would have suggested some kind of "on disk" nvram emulation for such
> non-nvram capable systems so that the nvram paradigm remains the same
> for nvram capable systems and is emulated for others that have, say,
> persistent disk.
Why emulate a 1 dimensional lim
Hello Everyone,
you may have noticed "LuCI the Lua Configuration Interface" in the official
release announcement for Kamikaze 8.08
As there was not much information about this project in the past and we
noticed several people asking in different places for it we like to make a
little announceme
101 - 200 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
