On 02.10.2014 12:21, Hanno Schupp wrote:
> For example, I did not know that "BB-final binaries have been online for
> over a day"... is it really too much to ask to send a short note about a
> major release to the mailing list?
exactly Etiennes point, correct and valid as opposed to uncivilized co
On 02.01.2012 10:52, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> On 1/1/12 5:01 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 08:00:07PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>> So tcp isn't generating bad checksums... but tcpdump is seeing corrupt
>>> packets.
>>
>> Hardware with TCP checksum offloadi
true, i just see this as a first step of finally reintegrating "mmc mod
from the forum" which grew into the newer sdhc module for brcm-2.4 into
trunk, where it can be maintained and enhanced.
on the other hand this is probably a dying subspecies as usb becomes
more and more available on wrt'd devi
Any reason why this is ignored?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.embedded.openwrt.devel/5395
.. bud
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
agreed.. for some reason it is ignored to a degree that is unbearable.
obviously are there people needing and using it, but obviously no core
devs use or are interested in it.. anyway, please somebody florian, jow,
travis anybody hear our cry .. please move it from trunk to packages.
Bernhard
resolves a wrongly detected recursive dependency of kmod-fuse
libfuse selects kmod-fuse, not only depends on it
.. bud
Index: package/fuse/Makefile
===
--- package/fuse/Makefile (Revision 21755)
+++ package/fuse/Makefile (Arbeitskopie
On 12.07.2010 22:24, Matthias Buecher / Germany wrote:
> Just saw r22145 and was wondering why this has been changed.
> What if 2.8 changes again the suffix? Re-replace everything?
> If someone is still compiling 2.4 for any reason with latest trunk he
> will have problems (lots of manual changes).
On 14.07.2010 14:49, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> Is that true?
> Yes.
can i still build it using some manual modification or is it removed
entirely?
.. bud
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/li
these patches consolidate the former
301-kmod-fuse-dcache-bug-r4k.patch
302-kmod-fuse-dcache-bug-fuse.patch
of which 302 was missing in trunk's /target/linux/brcm47xx/patches-2.6.{36,37}
. this let to the reappearance of the DCACHE bug on brcm47xx platforms using
these kernels (listing a fuse m
commited in rev 25308.. thanks bud
On 02.02.2011 13:13, Mark Vels wrote:
> Changeset 25113 bumped the version of package ntfs-3g to 2011.1.15 but the
> checksum for that blob is erroneously called
> PKG_MD5SUM_2010.1.15.
>
> This patch provides a fix for this typo.
>
__
these are still pending, any reason for this apart from the usual no time issue?
thanks bud
Original Message
Subject: fuse kmod patches for brcm47xx kernels 2.6.36,37
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:38:04 +0100
From: budd...@gmx.net
To: OpenWrt Development List
these patches consoli
because nothing happens i reopened
https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/4754
so other people can find the solution as long as it is not in trunk.
thanks bud
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/list
On 26.03.2011 12:25, Maarten Bezemer wrote:
>> I want to contribute, but I don't feel like I'm getting a warm
>> > welcome.
> I feel the same way. Tried to contribute by fixing/patching things I
> found while using OpenWRT, but none of them are applied (I think) even
> after reminders.
just want t
On 26.03.2011 18:07, Layne Edwards wrote:
> AFAIK, the "official" HOW-TO on submitting patches is here (which is linked
> to from the main trac wiki):
> https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/SubmittingPatches
>
which suggests to post patches here, where they seem to be laying around until
forgotten. i r
fair enough.. bud
On 28.03.2011 19:44, Gregers Petersen wrote:
> Dear All
>
> I've been following the discussion and would like to offer to organize
> an irc meeting on -devel - to discuss this issue, and together generate
> a model for how to change things to the better.
>
> I would like to sug
On 28.03.2011 21:44, Mike Baker wrote:
> In all honesty I'd suggest opening a ticket on trac; I'm not sure who
> wrote the page suggesting they be emailed, but it defeats the purpose
> of having a bug tracking system.
sorry, you miss the point. it is written there hence people take it for real.
i
On 30.05.2011 09:45, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On Sunday 29 May 2011 20:18:46 Philip Prindeville wrote:
>> On 5/29/11 10:34 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>>> On 29/05/11 19:14, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Minor comment. It's my understanding that gmake will fork/exec commands
> directly if it doesn't
17 matches
Mail list logo
