-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi.
>> OpenWrt does not currently run on devices which have 2MB or less of >> flash memory. This limitation will probably not be worked around since >> those devices are most of the time micro-routers, or Wireless Access >> Points, which are not the main OpenWrt target. > > This reads to me only as not primary target. Not as in "we do not > support that". The point is that no developer will care whether OpenWrt runs on 2MB flash and no efforts are made to make sure that the system remains usable with only 2MB - I think this qualifies as "unsupported", it may work, if it does not you're on your own since it does not meet the specifications. Of course you're free to compile your own micro images with stuff left out but there won't be an officially supported binary release for 2MB flash devices. > It simply states what was the case at the time of > writing. Also my understanding of the community project openwrt is not > to exlude anybody or some purpose. Not exclude something is not the same as actively supporting or working on it. > [extroot support split into lots of small packages] Imho for stuff like "blkid" the packaging overhead is higher than enabling the corresponding busybox applet - the package status info plus control file plus conditionals introduced elsewhere to check for the existance of a blkid executable is probably higher than the few hundred additional bytes of binary code introduced by enabling the busybox feature. I do not know whether we do ordinary users a favor by introducing dozens of microscopic packages just to allow some "power users" to get rid of a few features they don't want. I'd agree with an extroot-base and extroot-extra package maybe but not splitting each possibility out of the construct. In my opinion most users want a proven solution with a defined feature set that implements the current best practices. If somebody wants to implement external rootfs with the least amount of flash space he can select the tools he need manually and grab the script of the day from the wiki or some random blog. I don't see why we can't just agree on some standard, say for example ext2 rootfs with ext2 fsck and blkid support. Whoever needs something else is free to create his own solution. This is much like the current firewall situation, many users use the firewall framework provided by OpenWrt and those who need more advanced stuff just leave out the uci firewall entirely and replace it with shorewall or custom made scripts. ~ JoW -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkt+z70ACgkQdputYINPTPM62gCeIkxgc0EYvvidC3/k/klTLPM6 GaEAnRnc4HAH6ITUExYnaDFnOY5KeWQu =QTNX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
