> Le 21 juil. 2018 à 09:24, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> a écrit : > > > > On 19/07/18 20:08, Thibaut wrote: >>> On 19 Jul 2018, at 19:52, Mathias Kresin <d...@kresin.me> wrote: >>> >>> 2018-07-19 19:26 GMT+02:00 Thibaut VARÈNE <ha...@slashdirt.org>: >>>> faf94d926e2810f895f2a98d4a49ee2fe8f673e8 added "support" for a hacked >>>> device where the original boot loader (routerboot) has been replaced >>>> by u-boot. >>>> >>>> Support for this device with stock bootloader is possible (as evidenced >>>> by support for the RBM33G), and conflicts with this code. >>>> >>>> Remove code before release. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Thibaut VARÈNE <ha...@slashdirt.org> >>> FYI, I already NAK'ed the very same patch on github. >>> >>> I do agree that it can be done better by not requiring the replacement >>> of the bootloader. Nevertheless, support for this board is already >>> shipped since LEDE-17.01 and I don't agree to drop support for a board >>> without providing an alternative/fixed/better image. >> Just to clarify: this is not “support”. This is a user created custom hack >> that applies only to their modified board. >> >> T. >> _______________________________________________ >> openwrt-devel mailing list >> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org >> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > Hi, > I agree that proper support for none modified boards is far better and I am > always for having such support in tree. what i am failing to understand here > is why it is so important to remove this support or none-support patch from > the tree ? in general our stance was that if there is at least one user we'll > try to carry the functionality as long as we can. So why not remove this when > a better replacement is in place ?
Because there will be no replacement and I certainly don’t want to confuse the end users into thinking there will be one. I don’t know yet another way to say this more clearly: this patch doesn’t “drop support”: support was _never there_. There will be no “replacement”: there is no upgrade path. What this patch does is dropping bad code. What there will be is proper, correct NEW support for the hardware this code /pretends/ to offer support for but doesn’t. At the end of the day the device covered by this code is a /different/ device than the one support will be provided for. It’s A Frankendevice, that by the way doesn’t even pass the “hardware available?” question. The installation instructions on the wiki do not even provision a way to revert the hack. On a side note, if it’s a policy to support every user hack and bastardized hardware for which there is only one user _in tree_, then we have a fundamental difference in opinion and I’m afraid openwrt is then inflicting on itself a maintenance nightmare it can’t afford. My 2c, T _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel