Hi.
I am using the SDK and IB from LEDE 17.01.0 release (mips_24kc). I've
been using it successfully the last days until now. I did not change
anything but I get the error:
* opkg_install_pkg: Package luci-lib-nixio sha256sum mismatch. Either
the opkg or the package index are corrupt. Try 'opkg u
Just to clarify, this SDK/IB work is for the LibreMesh project. We want
to base our new release on LEDE 17.01.0 with the new tool we are
developing for cooking the firmware [1].
So we need actual frozen releases to be sure that once we publish a
release it will be always the same.
[1] https://git
Hi Pau,
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:28:22PM +0200, Pau wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I am using the SDK and IB from LEDE 17.01.0 release (mips_24kc). I've
> been using it successfully the last days until now. I did not change
> anything but I get the error:
>
> * opkg_install_pkg: Package luci-lib-nixio sha25
Hi Daniel, thanks for your reply. Find my comments in-line.
On 28/03/17 22:37, Daniel Golle wrote:
> Hi Pau,
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:28:22PM +0200, Pau wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I am using the SDK and IB from LEDE 17.01.0 release (mips_24kc). I've
>> been using it successfully the last days unti
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 ---
On 28/03/17 17:37, Daniel Golle wr
I am motivated to rant again on this topic. Repeating what I said last
November, before the new release process was finalized, in response to
David Lang:
---
>> There is an interesting question of how to refer to what state of each feed
>> you use for a release. Currently OpenWRT doesn't even tr
On 03/28/2017 06:19 PM, Gui Iribarren via Lede-dev wrote:
>> Packages from the feeds and even base-packages (think: openssl) can
>> change after a release, just like for other distributions.
> i agree packages can and should be maintained, but in progressivereleases.
>i.e. if i install ubuntu 12.04
On 03/29/2017 12:19 AM, Gui Iribarren via Lede-dev wrote:
>i.e. if i install ubuntu 12.04 today, i expect to have exactly the same
>system than what i got if i installed ubuntu 12.04 at the time of its
>release
>if i want to get the fixes that happened after the time of original
>12.04 release, i
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:55:09PM +0200, Pau wrote:
> Hi Daniel, thanks for your reply. Find my comments in-line.
>
> On 28/03/17 22:37, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > Hi Pau,
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:28:22PM +0200, Pau wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> I am using the SDK and IB from LEDE 17.01.0 rel
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:22:42PM +, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> On 03/29/2017 12:19 AM, Gui Iribarren via Lede-dev wrote:
> > all we want to do is create a firmware based on a specific LEDE release,
> > and not fear that if we want to rebuild the exact same firmware in two
> > months (or days!), w
Hi James,
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 04:58:54PM -0600, James Feeney wrote:
> I am motivated to rant again on this topic. Repeating what I said last
> November, before the new release process was finalized, in response to
> David Lang:
>
> ---
>
> >> There is an interesting question of how to refer
On 29/03/17 02:45, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:55:09PM +0200, Pau wrote:
>> Hi Daniel, thanks for your reply. Find my comments in-line.
>>
>> On 28/03/17 22:37, Daniel Golle wrote:
>>> Hi Pau,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:28:22PM +0200, Pau wrote:
Hi.
I am
Hi Daniel
> Well, this was actually fixed by having a specific snapshot of all
> feeds referenced in the SDK. Which is exactly the cause of all the
> confusion now...
> ...
>>> ... It would mean that every build was repeatable.
>
> Every build of what exactly?
> Do you realise that *none* of the p
On 03/29/2017 06:08 AM, James Feeney wrote:
> Realize? No - I'm still learning how this build process works in LEDE. My
> impression is that you are distinguishing between "packages" and some other
> type
> of thing, which the lede-project.org site seems to implicitly, and
> generically,
> re
On 03/29/2017 02:45 AM, Daniel Golle wrote:
> I get that problem, and it can be solved easily by removing the git
> commit hash from feeds.conf in the SDK and rather use the current
> snapshot instead.
> I agree that the lack of a lede-17.01 release branch on the package
> feeds may cause weird a
* James Feeney [29.03.2017 10:15]:
> Let me say again, I think that this is an important issue that the LEDE
> project
> needs to address and remedy. I believe that the ultimate credibility and
> reputation of the LEDE project is at stake.
what we do "internally":
checkout LEDE and all feeds a
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:28:07AM +0200, Pau wrote:
> On 29/03/17 02:45, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:55:09PM +0200, Pau wrote:
> >> Hi Daniel, thanks for your reply. Find my comments in-line.
> >>
> >> On 28/03/17 22:37, Daniel Golle wrote:
> >>> Hi Pau,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue,
Hi Alberto
> Also the kernel is handled like a package for the build system, but
> since most devices expect it outside of root filesystem in various ways,
> it's added to the firmware image the way the device's bootloader expects it.
I haven't seen a preferred term for the class of this combined
On 29/03/17 09:16, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>
>
> On 03/29/2017 02:45 AM, Daniel Golle wrote:
>> I get that problem, and it can be solved easily by removing the git
>> commit hash from feeds.conf in the SDK and rather use the current
>> snapshot instead.
>> I agree that the lack of a lede-17.01 relea
Hi Pau,
I will not reiterate the arguments made elsewhere in this thread but
merely describe why the version tagged 17.01.0 SDK uses fixed feed sources.
The main objective here was to make the build reproducible in a way that
you can use the 17.01.0 SDK to build artifacts resembling the released
On 03/29/2017 05:39 PM, James Feeney wrote:
> Hi Alberto
>
>> Also the kernel is handled like a package for the build system, but
>> since most devices expect it outside of root filesystem in various ways,
>> it's added to the firmware image the way the device's bootloader expects it.
> I haven't
On 29/03/17 20:57, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Pau,
>
> I will not reiterate the arguments made elsewhere in this thread but
> merely describe why the version tagged 17.01.0 SDK uses fixed feed sources.
>
> The main objective here was to make the build reproducible in a way that
> you can use the
On 03/29/2017 08:57 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Pau,
>
> I will not reiterate the arguments made elsewhere in this thread but
> merely describe why the version tagged 17.01.0 SDK uses fixed feed sources.
>
> The main objective here was to make the build reproducible in a way that
> you can us
23 matches
Mail list logo
