[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] iwinfo get scan results from wpa_supplicant in station mode. wpa_supplicant return some other info before return results. Loop recv until get real scan results.

--- .../utils/iwinfo/patches/002-wds-scan.patch| 26 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/network/utils/iwinfo/patches/002-wds-scan.patch diff --git a/package/network/utils/iwinfo/patches/002-wds-scan.patch

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

On Fri, 12 May 2017, Eric Luehrsen wrote: For example, rule (7) says all votes and decisions will be public but it lacks a formal expression that some decisions (intermediate term) need confidentiality. How do you handle bidding for services or inquiries by sponsors? "Time Limited

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

In my comments, recognize LEDE rules and consider them a great start. Also there seems to be a lot of chatter about concerns of merge compromise to these rules. Some of those concerns seem well founded. I would suggest that the LEDE rules be edited with some more consideration to recently

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

thereare formal rules: https://lede-project.org/rules 1. The only role distinction within the LEDE project is between committers and non-committers, there is no core developer group or other specially privileged members. 2. All committers have the right to vote and are invited to liberally

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

I read this on going thread and ... (sigh). "Good fences make good neighbors." Robert Frost People don't like rules and that could be even more true with open source work groups. However, a good set of _limited_ rules can make life easier. You may focus on important work or joyful recreation

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v2] ramips: add support for GL-inet GL-MT300N-V2

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 6:18 AM, L. D. Pinney wrote: > Hi Kyson : > > v2 looks much better ... > Not a LEDE dev...comments inline. > > Thanks for your contribution efforts! > > Larry Thanks for your review, I will modify it later. > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:48 AM,

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

On Fri, 12 May 2017, Paul Oranje wrote: Op 11 mei 2017, om 14:18 heeft Imre Kaloz het volgende geschreven: On 2017-05-11 00:33, Paul Oranje wrote: Op 10 mei 2017, om 11:31 heeft Imre Kaloz het volgende geschreven: On 2017-05-10 00:52, Jo-Philipp

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

Taking part in this discussion feels a bit awkward - without question I have less at stake than you and most other involved devs - but since I did speak-up ... -- Paul > Op 11 mei 2017, om 14:18 heeft Imre Kaloz het volgende > geschreven: > > Hi Paul, > > > On

[LEDE-DEV] Merged: opkg: add --no-check-certificate argument

Merged into project/opkg-lede.git, branch master with http://git.lede-project.org/?p=project/opkg-lede.git;a=commitdiff;h=c668fce. Thank you! ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v2] ramips: add support for GL-inet GL-MT300N-V2

Hi Kyson : v2 looks much better ... Not a LEDE dev...comments inline. Thanks for your contribution efforts! Larry On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:48 AM, kysonlok wrote: > This patch adds supports for the GL-inet GL-MT300N-V2. > > Specification: > - SoC: MediaTek MT7628AN > -

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH 2/3] include: Do not alter KERNELRELEASE for external/git kernels

In case we use external and/or git cloned kernels, let the kernel determine the appropriate KERNELRELEASE. We cannot used LINUX_UNAME_VERSION because that one gets determined at a later time, when the kernel is already built proper. Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli ---

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH 1/3] Revert "kernel: prevent addition of scm marker to localversion"

This reverts commit 0df2c6563a3537ed21b28a9fb6874bf2718afd05 since it gets in the way of identifying properly which kernel we are running. This is particularly important if LEDE is using external kernels/git cloned kernels. We want to make sure we only load modules from that specific kernel.

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH 0/3] Fix modules loading with external/git kernels

Hi, As I was alluding to in this email: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2017-February/005980.html there used to be a problem in that we could not load kernel modules. This was largely fixed by two different commits: 1f12a3d8f3525741bef2bc2be7c5c6c77b50 ("kernel: speed up

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] mxs: add support for 4.9 and switch over

I did not port the regulator and power patches from Stefan Wahren because I talked to him and he told me that work on this is currently stalled. And since AFAIK nothing depends on these patches, leaving them out seems reasonable. I build minimum default configurations and run-tested them on both

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] kernel: disable various symbols for v4.9

In preparation for bumping mxs target to 4.9, disable a bunch of configuration symbols that provoked config prompts. Signed-off-by: Michael Heimpold --- target/linux/generic/config-4.9 | 4 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/target/linux/generic/config-4.9

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH][opkg-lede][V3] opkg: add --no-check-certificate argument

For cases when artifacts are stored on https:// accessible locations and you don't want to install ca-certificates (for various reasons). I'll admit, using SSL like this is not recommended, but since wget (even uclient-fetch) allows the --no-check-certificate option, it would be nice for opkg to

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] opkg: add --no-check-certificate argument

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: > Hi, > > comments inline. > >> --- >> libopkg/opkg_conf.c | 1 + >> libopkg/opkg_conf.h | 1 + >> libopkg/opkg_download.c | 5 - >> src/opkg-cl.c | 6 ++ >> 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

> On May 11, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Philip Prindeville > wrote: > > Yeah, I have to agree with this. You don’t get married, then define your > vows afterwards… Actually, sticking with the “marriage” paradigm a bit longer, what are the assets that the OpenWRT

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

> On May 11, 2017, at 4:53 AM, Stijn Segers > wrote: > > Some of the OpenWrt veterans come across as if they want the re-merge to be > rushed, ignoring the actual issues that caused the fork in the first place. Yeah, I have to agree with this. You don’t

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] ipq806x: Add nand boot support for ipq40xx AP-DK04.1-C1

The sender domain has a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy which disallows sending mailing list messages using the original "From" header. To mitigate this problem, the original message has been wrapped automatically by the mailing list software.--- Begin Message --- Hello Ram, On Thursday, May 11,

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] ipq806x: Add nand boot support for ipq40xx AP-DK04.1-C1

>Hi Christian, >Hello, On Monday, May 08, 2017 10:24 PM Ram Chandra Jangir wrote: > On Saturday, May 06, 2017 11:24 PM Christian Lamparter wrote: >On Friday, May 5, 2017 9:19:36 PM CEST Ram Chandra Jangir wrote: > This change add nand boot support for IPQ40xx based > AP-DK04.1-C1 board using

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v2] ipq806x: Add nand boot support for ipq40xx AP-DK04.1-C1

This change add nand boot support for IPQ40xx based AP-DK04.1-C1 board using ubi image, also add sysupgrage support for AP-DK04.1-C1 and generates a sysupgrade.tar image. Testing: *Tested on IPQ40xx AP-DK04.1-C1 and IPQ806x AP148 Board: a. NAND boot b. ubi sysupgrade Signed-off-by: Ram

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH][opkg-lede] opkg: add --force-ssl argument

On 5/11/17 11:13, Etienne Champetier wrote: Hi Alexandru, 2017-05-11 7:59 GMT-07:00 Alexandru Ardelean : For cases when artifacts are stored on https:// accessible location and you don't want to install ca-certificates (for various reasons). I'll admit, using SSL

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] opkg: add --no-check-certificate argument

Hi, comments inline. > --- > libopkg/opkg_conf.c | 1 + > libopkg/opkg_conf.h | 1 + > libopkg/opkg_download.c | 5 - > src/opkg-cl.c | 6 ++ > 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/libopkg/opkg_conf.c b/libopkg/opkg_conf.c > index

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] opkg: add --no-check-certificate argument

For cases when artifacts are stored on https:// accessible location and you don't want to install ca-certificates (for various reasons). I'll admit, using SSL like this is not recommended, but since wget (even uclient-fetch) allows the --no-check-certificate option, it would be nice for opkg to

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH][opkg-lede] opkg: add --force-ssl argument

Hi, >> I'll admit, using SSL like this is not recommended, >> but since wget (even uclient-fetch) allows the >> --no-check-certificate option, it would be nice >> for opkg to support setting it if needed/configured. > > Why not name this option --no-check-certificate then ? Exactly my thoughts,

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH][opkg-lede] opkg: add --force-ssl argument

Hi Alexandru, 2017-05-11 7:59 GMT-07:00 Alexandru Ardelean : > For cases when artifacts are stored on https:// accessible > location and you don't want to install ca-certificates > (for various reasons). > > I'll admit, using SSL like this is not recommended, > but since

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH][opkg-lede] opkg: add --force-ssl argument

For cases when artifacts are stored on https:// accessible location and you don't want to install ca-certificates (for various reasons). I'll admit, using SSL like this is not recommended, but since wget (even uclient-fetch) allows the --no-check-certificate option, it would be nice for opkg to

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [OpenWrt-Devel] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

Thanks for the reply Imre. Imre Kaloz schreef op 2017-05-11 15:13: Well hello there, On 2017-05-11 12:53, Stijn Segers wrote: While, like most people, I'm happy progress has been made towards a re-merge, there still seems quite some passive-agressive behaviour present coming from certain

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [question] gpg signature validation of source package

On 11/05/2017 14:27, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2017-05-11 09:16, Alif M. A. wrote: >> I am preparing for grub-2.02 package upgrade. >> >> The download mirror provides a gpg signature (.sig file), which can be >> used to validate the source package. >> >> Does LEDE build system have a way to verify

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

Hi Paul, On 2017-05-11 00:33, Paul Oranje wrote: Although being someone that’s merely following the developments of this project, I want to comment on what’s going on in this thread. Some of my remarks may strike as not very positive, so please do not take any of those personal. s.y. Paul

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

Of course you only see you numbered your notes the wrong way *after* you send your e-mail... The second [3] and [4] should have been [5] and [6] (see inline). Stijn Segers schreef op 2017-05-11 12:53: Hey guys, This might be a bit lengthy, but I should get this off my chest. I feel people

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

Hey guys, This might be a bit lengthy, but I should get this off my chest. I feel people are mostly looking at the upside and glossing over the negatives, which is a time bomb, and both projects do not deserve this. Paul's e-mail [0] already touches a lot of the relevant points, and it

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

[Some lists were dropped from this thread, adding again] > >>> According to the rules there shall be no personal mail accounts at all. >>> There should be plenty of time until the actual remerge to fade them out >>> and to set up forwarding elsewhere. >> >> I hope you agree that a merge means

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v2] ramips: add support for GL-inet GL-MT300N-V2

This patch adds supports for the GL-inet GL-MT300N-V2. Specification: - SoC: MediaTek MT7628AN - Flash: 16 MiB (W25Q128FVSG) - RAM: 128 MiB DDR - Ethernet: 1 x WAN (100 Mbps) and 1 x LAN (100 Mbps) - USB: 1 x USB 2.0 port - Button: 1 x switch button, 1 x reset button - LED: 3 x LEDS (system power

Re: [LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

On 05/11/2017 12:17 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > Thanks for moving this forward. > > On 05/08/2017 03:19 PM, John Crispin wrote: >> *) github > . >> >> - obsolete the lede github org after a grace period of 3-6 months > > As long as it does not cost us effort I would like to keep the lede >

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [question] gpg signature validation of source package

On 2017-05-11 09:16, Alif M. A. wrote: > I am preparing for grub-2.02 package upgrade. > > The download mirror provides a gpg signature (.sig file), which can be > used to validate the source package. > > Does LEDE build system have a way to verify source package using gpg > signature? I'd

[LEDE-DEV] [question] gpg signature validation of source package

I am preparing for grub-2.02 package upgrade. The download mirror provides a gpg signature (.sig file), which can be used to validate the source package. Does LEDE build system have a way to verify source package using gpg signature? I'd rather use gpg verification if possible, rather than

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] hostapd: set mcast_rate in mesh mode

From: Sven Eckelmann The wpa_supplicant code for IBSS allows to set the mcast rate. It is recommended to increase this value from 1 or 6 Mbit/s to something higher when using a mesh protocol on top which uses the multicast packet loss as indicator for the link