[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] package/devel/gdb-arc: Add target GDB for ARC
ARC port of GDB is not yet upstream so we need to use sources from Synopsys GitHub repo. Given Synopys' commitment to upstream ARC support in GDB in the nearest future it might be simpler to add a separate package for ARC GDB instead of patching generic GDB package. This way once ARC GDB stuff gets uptreamed we'll only need to remove that new "gdb-arc" package. Note 1 very minor change in generic gdb package was done - it now depends on !arc (while "gdb-arc" depends on "arc"). Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin --- package/devel/{gdb => gdb-arc}/Makefile| 44 -- .../gdb-arc/patches/100-no_extern_inline.patch | 32 .../devel/gdb-arc/patches/110-no_testsuite.patch | 21 +++ .../patches/120-fix-compile-flag-mismatch.patch| 11 ++ package/devel/gdb/Makefile | 2 +- 5 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) copy package/devel/{gdb => gdb-arc}/Makefile (64%) create mode 100644 package/devel/gdb-arc/patches/100-no_extern_inline.patch create mode 100644 package/devel/gdb-arc/patches/110-no_testsuite.patch create mode 100644 package/devel/gdb-arc/patches/120-fix-compile-flag-mismatch.patch diff --git a/package/devel/gdb/Makefile b/package/devel/gdb-arc/Makefile similarity index 64% copy from package/devel/gdb/Makefile copy to package/devel/gdb-arc/Makefile index f6d5fec..c42b108 100644 --- a/package/devel/gdb/Makefile +++ b/package/devel/gdb-arc/Makefile @@ -7,13 +7,15 @@ include $(TOPDIR)/rules.mk -PKG_NAME:=gdb -PKG_VERSION:=7.11 +PKG_NAME:=gdb-arc +PKG_VERSION:=arc-2016.03-gdb PKG_RELEASE:=1 -PKG_SOURCE:=$(PKG_NAME)-$(PKG_VERSION).tar.xz -PKG_SOURCE_URL:=@GNU/gdb -PKG_MD5SUM:=b5c784685e1cde65ba135feea86b6d75 +PKG_SOURCE:=gdb-arc-2016.03-gdb.tar.gz +PKG_SOURCE_URL:=https://github.com/foss-for-synopsys-dwc-arc-processors/binutils-gdb/archive/$(PKG_VERSION) +PKG_MD5SUM:=775caaf6385c16f20b6f53c0a2b95f79 + +PKG_BUILD_DIR:=$(BUILD_DIR)/binutils-gdb-arc-2016.03-gdb PKG_BUILD_PARALLEL:=1 PKG_INSTALL:=1 @@ -21,31 +23,31 @@ PKG_LICENSE:=GPL-3.0+ include $(INCLUDE_DIR)/package.mk -define Package/gdb/Default +define Package/gdb-arc/Default SECTION:=devel CATEGORY:=Development - DEPENDS:=+!USE_MUSL:libthread-db +PACKAGE_zlib:zlib + DEPENDS:=+!USE_MUSL:libthread-db +PACKAGE_zlib:zlib @arc URL:=http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/ endef -define Package/gdb -$(call Package/gdb/Default) - TITLE:=GNU Debugger +define Package/gdb-arc +$(call Package/gdb-arc/Default) + TITLE:=GNU Debugger for ARC DEPENDS+=+libreadline +libncurses +zlib endef -define Package/gdb/description +define Package/gdb-arc/description GDB, the GNU Project debugger, allows you to see what is going on `inside' another program while it executes -- or what another program was doing at the moment it crashed. endef -define Package/gdbserver -$(call Package/gdb/Default) +define Package/gdbserver-arc +$(call Package/gdb-arc/Default) TITLE:=Remote server for GNU Debugger endef -define Package/gdbserver/description +define Package/gdbserver-arc/description GDBSERVER is a program that allows you to run GDB on a different machine than the one which is running the program being debugged. endef @@ -55,7 +57,11 @@ CONFIGURE_ARGS+= \ --with-system-readline \ --without-expat \ --without-lzma \ - --disable-werror + --disable-werror \ + --disable-binutils \ + --disable-ld \ + --disable-gas \ + --disable-sim CONFIGURE_VARS+= \ ac_cv_search_tgetent="$(TARGET_LDFLAGS) -lncurses -lreadline" @@ -74,15 +80,15 @@ define Build/Install install-gdb endef -define Package/gdb/install +define Package/gdb-arc/install $(INSTALL_DIR) $(1)/usr/bin $(INSTALL_BIN) $(PKG_INSTALL_DIR)/usr/bin/gdb $(1)/usr/bin/ endef -define Package/gdbserver/install +define Package/gdbserver-arc/install $(INSTALL_DIR) $(1)/usr/bin $(INSTALL_BIN) $(PKG_INSTALL_DIR)/usr/bin/gdbserver $(1)/usr/bin/ endef -$(eval $(call BuildPackage,gdb)) -$(eval $(call BuildPackage,gdbserver)) +$(eval $(call BuildPackage,gdb-arc)) +$(eval $(call BuildPackage,gdbserver-arc)) diff --git a/package/devel/gdb-arc/patches/100-no_extern_inline.patch b/package/devel/gdb-arc/patches/100-no_extern_inline.patch new file mode 100644 index 000..8c18c6e --- /dev/null +++ b/package/devel/gdb-arc/patches/100-no_extern_inline.patch @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- a/sim/common/sim-arange.c b/sim/common/sim-arange.c +@@ -280,11 +280,7 @@ sim_addr_range_delete (ADDR_RANGE *ar, a + build_search_tree (ar); + } + +-#endif /* DEFINE_NON_INLINE_P */ +- +-#if DEFINE_INLINE_P +- +-SIM_ARANGE_INLINE int ++int + sim_addr_range_hit_p (ADDR_RANGE *ar, address_word addr) + { + ADDR_RANGE_TREE *t = ar->range_tree; +@@ -301,4 +297,4 @@ sim_addr_range_hit_p (ADDR_RANGE *ar, ad + return 0; + } + +-#endif /* DEFINE_INLINE_P */ ++#endif /* DEFINE_NON_INLINE_P */ +--- a/sim/commo
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:42:36PM +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote: > May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are > yet to see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to > happen in OpenWrt. > i don't think you'll get anything more official than jow's mail from may 26. i'll freely admit that it's somewhat lacking regarding directly actionable "strategic" items, but you guys gave no (public) indication that you're even interested in an actual dialog at all. the statements regarding the canceled email forwards don't exactly help, either (seriously, who's supposed to buy that?!). > The OpenWrt team > this way to communicate is part of the explicitly stated problems which lede is trying to address (and failing at inception, but hey, let's get over this tiny faux pas already ^^). ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Eric Schultz wrote: Zoltan, I'm pleased to hear there's been some movement. Does this mean that OpenWrt is going to have releases while LEDE will not? Considering that LEDE folks recently posted a "what's blocking the release" message, this would be extremely unlikely. I am very interested in seeing what OpenWRT is going to be doing next. I hope that it's more than just pulling patches from LEDE. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but would be rather limiting in what value OpenWRT would be providing. And if it is the viewpoint of OpenWRT that LEDE is an experimental testbed (the way that Fedora is seen as a testbed for RHEL), then people should not be told to go away if a lede question is posted on the OpenWRT forums (something I've seen a few times so far) David Lang Eric On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:42 AM, 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 responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list. Is it lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and reasonable dialogue in public, or something else? I admit that for all the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency to the less than generous suspicions, now). Hi Daniel, May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are yet to see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to happen in OpenWrt (setting aside the FUD some LEDE members have shown on the list). The IRC discussion did not happen due to being unable to work out the timezone differences, the conversation on the mailing list did not move forward - this is obviously an issue on our side as well. The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the OpenWrt team is: Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this, to let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to all contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no objections but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github move later this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors. What we would like is to: - Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their targets, - Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite. Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite confusing. We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE patches will also be brought in where appropriate. Regards, The OpenWrt team ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd: Enable Interworking (802.11u) and Hotspot 2.0 Support
-Description: It enables functionality to improve interworking with external networks (GAS/ANQP to learn more about the networks and network selection based on available credentials). I figured out that it was actually not activated yet in hostapd. It enables hostapd to support 802.11u standard just like modern AP which implements Hospot 2.0 based on 802.11u. The example of this is Telekom Germany who provides its customers the roaming capability to their WIFI-hotspots by authentication with EAP-SIM (from SIM card of the customer's mobile devices), so that the customers can connect automatically to telekom-802.11u-capable hotspots encrypted and without human assistance. Activating Hotspot 2.0 allows AP to provides more specific informations and services based on 802.11u. Wiki and uci configuration will be made for this. -Changelog: Add CONFIG_INTERWORKING=y and CONFIG_HS20=y. Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 8 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config index 09bdb88..2750315 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config @@ -174,3 +174,11 @@ CONFIG_TLSV11=y # Add wpa_supplicant support for TLS version 1.2 CONFIG_TLSV12=y + +# Interworking (IEEE 802.11u) +# This can be used to enable functionality to improve interworking with +# external networks. +CONFIG_INTERWORKING=y + +# Hotspot 2.0 +CONFIG_HS20=y -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd: Enable TLSv1.1 and TLSv1.2 Support
-Description: Enable wpa_supplicant support for TLS version 1.1 and 1.2. -Changelog: 1) Adding CONFIG_TLSV11=y 2) Adding CONFIG_TLSV12=y Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config index f500368..09bdb88 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config @@ -168,3 +168,9 @@ CONFIG_NO_RANDOM_POOL=y CONFIG_FULL_DYNAMIC_VLAN=y CONFIG_UBUS=y + +# Add wpa_supplicant support for TLS version 1.1 +CONFIG_TLSV11=y + +# Add wpa_supplicant support for TLS version 1.2 +CONFIG_TLSV12=y -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd:Bring Back Dumping internal State
-Description: Since it is full version of hostapd, there is no need to disable this functionality as the new devices are getting more complex and need more debugging capabilities. -Changelog: Commenting CONFIG_NO_DUMP_STATE=y. Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config index da4c6e7..f500368 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ CONFIG_INTERNAL_AES=y NEED_AES_DEC=y CONFIG_NO_RANDOM_POOL=y -CONFIG_NO_DUMP_STATE=y +#CONFIG_NO_DUMP_STATE=y CONFIG_FULL_DYNAMIC_VLAN=y -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd: Add Support to Separate Debug from Syslog
-Description: By enabling "-f " argument we can separate Debug to one file rather than merge it with syslog. It makes hostapd debugging easier to read in one file rather than analyse the whole syslog. Wiki and config support will be made for this. -Changelog: Adding CONFIG_DEBUG_FILE=y. Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config index e63800d..da4c6e7 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config @@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ CONFIG_IEEE80211AC=y # code is not needed. #CONFIG_NO_STDOUT_DEBUG=y +CONFIG_DEBUG_FILE=y + # Remove support for RADIUS accounting #CONFIG_NO_ACCOUNTING=y -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd: Enable EAP-SIM Support for 802.11u with Simcard
-Description: *Because it is hostapd, it is recommended to apply this patch as AP mode with 802.11u.* *** Many modern AP who implements Hotspot 2.0 (802.11u standard) need capability to authenticate client automatically from the installed SIM-card in clients mobile phones. Example of this is Telekom Germany, who implements roaming of their "Telekom"-Wifi for their customers with hotspot 2.0. The customers handphone which supports Hotspot 2.0 will connect automatically to Telekom hotspot and for the authentication it implements EAP-SIM, which means the handphones use the Telekom-SIM-Card to authenticate automatically with Telekom hotspot. For hostapd in AP, it needs to be enabled otherwise standard 802.11u will not correctly implemented in that case. -Changelog: Enable CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y. Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config index 1a11f6c..e63800d 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ CONFIG_EAP_GTC=y CONFIG_EAP_TTLS=y # EAP-SIM for the integrated EAP server -#CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y +CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y # EAP-AKA for the integrated EAP server #CONFIG_EAP_AKA=y -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd: Enable EAP Re-authentication Protocol
-Description: Enable EAP Re-authentication Protocol in integrated EAP server. -Changelog: Adding CONFIG_EAP=y. Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config index c8e9521..1a11f6c 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ CONFIG_PEERKEY=y # Integrated EAP server CONFIG_EAP=y +# EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) in integrated EAP server +CONFIG_ERP=y + # EAP-MD5 for the integrated EAP server CONFIG_EAP_MD5=y -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] wpa_supplicant: Enabling Hotspot 2.0 Support for 802.11u
-Description: It enables Hotspot 2.0 support based on 802.11u for modern AP. -Changelog: Adding CONFIG_HS20=y Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config index dd1ef8c..f252858 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config @@ -426,3 +426,6 @@ CONFIG_IEEE80211AC=y # external networks (GAS/ANQP to learn more about the networks and network # selection based on available credentials). CONFIG_INTERWORKING=y + +# Hotspot 2.0 +CONFIG_HS20=y -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] wpa_supplicant: GNU Readline and History Support for command line
-Description: Include support for GNU Readline and History Libraries in wpa_cli. By enabling this, we will get history support for wpa_cli, so that wpa_cli-interactive-mode interprets up and down key as historical commands rather than just not-interpretable "^[[A" or "^[[B" strings. -Changelog: Enabling CONFIG_READLINE=y. Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config index 441eab1..dd1ef8c 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ CONFIG_CTRL_IFACE=y # When building a wpa_cli binary for distribution, please note that these # libraries are licensed under GPL and as such, BSD license may not apply for # the resulting binary. -#CONFIG_READLINE=y +CONFIG_READLINE=y # Remove debugging code that is printing out debug message to stdout. # This can be used to reduce the size of the wpa_supplicant considerably -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] wpa_supplicant: Support HT and VHT Overrides
-Description: It enables wpa_supplicant to overrides HT and VHT (disable HT/HT40, mask MCS rates, etc.) in wpa_supplicant configuration file. NB: Openwrt wiki and settings for uci would be made (from me), if this patch was applied. -Changelog: Enabling CONFIG_HT_OVERRIDES=y and CONFIG_VHT_OVERRIDES=y. Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config index 27a7820..441eab1 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config @@ -200,6 +200,12 @@ CONFIG_SMARTCARD=y # Enable this if EAP-SIM or EAP-AKA is included CONFIG_PCSC=y +# Support HT overrides (disable HT/HT40, mask MCS rates, etc.) +CONFIG_HT_OVERRIDES=y + +# Support VHT overrides (disable VHT, mask MCS rates, etc.) +CONFIG_VHT_OVERRIDES=y + # Development testing #CONFIG_EAPOL_TEST=y -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH v2] wpa_supplicant: Enable EAP-SIM Support for 802.11u with Simcard
-Description: Many modern AP who implements Hotspot 2.0 (802.11u standard) need capability to authenticate client automatically from the installed SIM-card in clients mobile phones. Example of this is Telekom Germany, who implements roaming of their "Telekom"-Wifi for their customers with hotspot 2.0. The customers handphone which supports Hotspot 2.0 will connect automatically to Telekom hotspot and for the authentication it implements EAP-SIM, which means the handphones use the Telekom-SIM-Card to authenticate automatically with Telekom hotspot. this supplicant config needs to be enabled otherwise standard 802.11u will not correctly implemented in that case. According to the actual defconfig, CONFIG_PCSC=y should also be activated if EAP-SIM or EAP-AKA is activated: # PC/SC interface for smartcards (USIM, GSM SIM) # Enable this if EAP-SIM or EAP-AKA is included #CONFIG_PCSC=y -Changelog: v1: Enabling CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y v2: Enabling CONFIG_PCSC=y as implication of v1 Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config index e653212..27a7820 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ CONFIG_EAP_GTC=y CONFIG_EAP_OTP=y # EAP-SIM (enable CONFIG_PCSC, if EAP-SIM is used) -#CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y +CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y # EAP-PSK (experimental; this is _not_ needed for WPA-PSK) #CONFIG_EAP_PSK=y @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ CONFIG_SMARTCARD=y # PC/SC interface for smartcards (USIM, GSM SIM) # Enable this if EAP-SIM or EAP-AKA is included -#CONFIG_PCSC=y +CONFIG_PCSC=y # Development testing #CONFIG_EAPOL_TEST=y -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] wpa_supplicant: Enable EAP-SIM Support for 802.11u with Simcard
-Description: Many modern AP who implements Hotspot 2.0 (802.11u standard) need capability to authenticate client automatically from the installed SIM-card in clients mobile phones. Example of this is Telekom Germany, who implements roaming of their "Telekom"-Wifi for their customers with hotspot 2.0. The customers handphone which supports Hotspot 2.0 will connect automatically to Telekom hotspot and for the authentication it implements EAP-SIM, which means the handphones use the Telekom-SIM-Card to authenticate automatically with Telekom hotspot. this supplicant config needs to be enabled otherwise standard 802.11u will not correctly implemented in that case. -Changelog: Enabling CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config index e653212..a95e965 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ CONFIG_EAP_GTC=y CONFIG_EAP_OTP=y # EAP-SIM (enable CONFIG_PCSC, if EAP-SIM is used) -#CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y +CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y # EAP-PSK (experimental; this is _not_ needed for WPA-PSK) #CONFIG_EAP_PSK=y -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd/wpa_supplicant: Remove duplicate configs, spare some bytes
-Description: There were some duplicates entries in full version of supplicant and hostapd. It removes all duplicates found. -Changelog: Deleting duplicates for CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y and CONFIG_WPS=y. Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama --- package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config| 6 +- package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config | 5 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config index 681e9df..c8e9521 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config @@ -53,9 +53,6 @@ CONFIG_PEERKEY=y # Integrated EAP server CONFIG_EAP=y -# EAP-FAST for the integrated EAP server -CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y - # EAP-MD5 for the integrated EAP server CONFIG_EAP_MD5=y @@ -103,7 +100,7 @@ CONFIG_EAP_TTLS=y # functionality needed for EAP-FAST. If EAP-FAST is enabled with OpenSSL, # the OpenSSL library must be patched (openssl-0.9.9-session-ticket.patch) # to add the needed functions. -#CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y +CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y # Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) CONFIG_WPS=y @@ -163,7 +160,6 @@ NEED_AES_DEC=y CONFIG_NO_RANDOM_POOL=y CONFIG_NO_DUMP_STATE=y -CONFIG_WPS=y CONFIG_FULL_DYNAMIC_VLAN=y CONFIG_UBUS=y diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config index e23ea4c..e653212 100644 --- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config +++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config @@ -121,9 +121,6 @@ CONFIG_DRIVER_WIRED=y # included) CONFIG_IEEE8021X_EAPOL=y -# EAP-FAST -CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y - # EAP-MD5 CONFIG_EAP_MD5=y @@ -144,7 +141,7 @@ CONFIG_EAP_TTLS=y # functionality needed for EAP-FAST. If EAP-FAST is enabled with OpenSSL, # the OpenSSL library must be patched (openssl-0.9.8d-tls-extensions.patch) # to add the needed functions. -#CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y +CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y # EAP-GTC CONFIG_EAP_GTC=y -- 2.1.4 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?
Zoltan, I'm pleased to hear there's been some movement. Does this mean that OpenWrt is going to have releases while LEDE will not? Eric On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:42 AM, 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 responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list. Is it >> lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and >> reasonable dialogue in public, or something else? I admit that for all >> the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency >> in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the >> remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my >> mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency >> to the less than generous suspicions, now). >> >> > > Hi Daniel, > > May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are yet to > see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to happen in > OpenWrt (setting aside the FUD some LEDE members have shown on the list). > The IRC discussion did not happen due to being unable to work out the > timezone differences, the conversation on the mailing list did not move > forward - this is obviously an issue on our side as well. > > The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the > OpenWrt team is: > > > Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for > new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away > from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this, > to let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to > all contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no > objections but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github > move later this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors. > > What we would like is to: > - Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their > targets, > - Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite. > Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite > confusing. > > We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get > trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE > patches will also be brought in where appropriate. > > Regards, > The OpenWrt team > > ___ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > -- Eric Schultz, Community Manager, prpl Foundation http://www.prplfoundation.org eschu...@prplfoundation.org cell: 920-539-0404 skype: ericschultzwi @EricPrpl ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?
Hi! On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:42:36PM +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote: > ... > The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the > OpenWrt team is: > > > Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for > new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away > from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this, to > let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to all Interesting, has anyone asked you to do this? LEDE keeps merging things from OpenWrt's tree without any difficulties caused so far. There is even a formal scheme on how to label commits imported from OpenWrt. > contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no objections > but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github move later > this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors. > > What we would like is to: > - Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their > targets, By posting patches e.g. for the oxnas target which I maintain to the mailing list and bother John to merge them? How do you imagine this could work without a transparent procedure on how people could gain or (be forced to) drop commit access? Nothing about that is mentioned on https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/GoverningRules (and that's apparently still a draft which hasn't ever been approved by all existing project members, I never ever saw any of that PGP-signed voting described in there on the mailing list happen in all the years I'm following it) > - Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite. > Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite > confusing. Which exact goal are you referring to? Imho a 'split' never happened, everybody kept contributing to both projects. However, I reckon you cannot expect people to just get back to work without priorly dealing with or at least acknowlede the fact that very few people did most of the work without a clear strategy on how to change that situation. Moving to github might improve that, but still fails to address the remaining issues (see http://www.lede-project.org/), such as the intransparent communication and decission making behind closed doors. Technically that means openwrt-hack...@lists.openwrt.org should have a publicly accessible archive (at least from now on), the private IRC channels should also allow public read access and decissions made should be backed by those publicly accessible communications. > > We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get > trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE patches > will also be brought in where appropriate. Great to hear this! > > Regards, > The OpenWrt team Just for the record: Who is that exactly? Cheers Daniel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?
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 responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list. Is it lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and reasonable dialogue in public, or something else? I admit that for all the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency to the less than generous suspicions, now). Hi Daniel, May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are yet to see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to happen in OpenWrt (setting aside the FUD some LEDE members have shown on the list). The IRC discussion did not happen due to being unable to work out the timezone differences, the conversation on the mailing list did not move forward - this is obviously an issue on our side as well. The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the OpenWrt team is: Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this, to let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to all contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no objections but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github move later this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors. What we would like is to: - Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their targets, - Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite. Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite confusing. We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE patches will also be brought in where appropriate. Regards, The OpenWrt team ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [OpenWrt] Meeting on TR-069 Work - Friday, June 10 - 7 AM PT
Eric, all, Eric Schultz wrote: > I'm excited to see so many people interested in TR-069 support! As a follow up > to the previous TR-069 email, I've set up a meeting on TR-069 support for > OpenWrt. The meeting is on Friday, June 10 at 7 AM PT. We have prepared a short presentation giving a high level overview of Technicolor's proposed TR-069 contribution. It includes an architecture diagram, a description of the main components and a few examples and code snippets. We can add more detail in the Friday meeting and we are happy to review questions up front. You can grab the PDF at the link below, which will be invalidated in 5 days. Can anyone recommend a more permanent place to store this information? Url : https://rdupload.technicolor.com/dl/9f263b37a666282e2368fcbb15e4714f6a7311cc7467cef0 Login : TCH75e8f8 Password : 232IT_5G Regards, Jos ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
[OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?
iVBORw0KGgoNSUhEUgAAADAwAQMAAABtzGvEBlBMVEX///8AAABVwtN+eklEQVQY04XQzQ2EIBAF4IdMDIc5UAIlUIKlWMr0ZiMm28jOj+6iMXEOfBBmXgJAVLGlBkU3wcZ9I3Q7EdrAveowx6hZ0q6QJDsRnHlJwr+W4CHF7vLqTEenXABeUnSssbP8SdwdjTHEwcFDtQGKFuWjH8Lna8vAmfEF3NMPdAOsBscASUVORK5CYII= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list. Is it lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and reasonable dialogue in public, or something else? I admit that for all the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency to the less than generous suspicions, now). Regards, Daniel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] libnet-1.2.x: enable HAVE_PACKET_SOCKET
On 19/05/2016 14:57, Alin Nastac wrote: > There is already a CONFIGURE_VAR set in here that seem > to have the same purpose, but it doesn't do the trick > in my cause (autoconf 2.69). > --- > libs/libnet-1.2.x/Makefile | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/libs/libnet-1.2.x/Makefile b/libs/libnet-1.2.x/Makefile > index a791163..062c7b6 100644 > --- a/libs/libnet-1.2.x/Makefile > +++ b/libs/libnet-1.2.x/Makefile > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ CONFIGURE_ARGS += \ > CONFIGURE_VARS += \ > ac_cv_libnet_endianess=$(ENDIANESS) \ > ac_libnet_have_pf_packet=yes \ > + libnet_cv_have_packet_socket=yes \ > LL_INT_TYPE=libnet_link_linux > > define Build/Configure > Hi, this package is hosted on the github feed. can you pleases send a PRC there ? John ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PROPOSAL] move OpenWrt codebase to Git and GitHub
I also agree with Luka. Github supplies a serious of features to make open source development more easier. Pull request, issue tracker etc. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel