I've pushed my dropbear patch to this github tree:
https://github.com/cpatulea/openwrt/tree/next
If you have any new dropbear updates, feel free to cc me and I will merge.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Pau p...@dabax.net wrote:
Dammit, I've seen this thread after preparing a patch to upgrade
Please accept this patch.
On 28 Feb 2014 14:16, Vittorio G (VittGam) open...@vittgam.net wrote:
Hi,
This patch fixes a regression introduced with r38787.
Before patching:
/usr/sbin/ntpd -n -l -p server1 server2 server3 server4
After patching:
/usr/sbin/ntpd -n -l -p server1 -p server2 -p
This was fixed in r39935 I think:
http://openwrt.nanobit.org/changeset/39935/trunk/package/utils/busybox/files/sysntpd
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Weedy weedy2...@gmail.com wrote:
Please accept this patch.
On 28 Feb 2014 14:16, Vittorio G (VittGam) open...@vittgam.net wrote:
Hi,
This
On 2014-02-28 20:16, Vittorio G (VittGam) wrote:
Hi,
This patch fixes a regression introduced with r38787.
Before patching:
/usr/sbin/ntpd -n -l -p server1 server2 server3 server4
After patching:
/usr/sbin/ntpd -n -l -p server1 -p server2 -p server3 -p server4
Signed-off-by:
Dude, *you* committed this fix 10 days ago:
http://openwrt.nanobit.org/changeset/39935/trunk/package/utils/busybox/files/sysntpd
Why not take a look at patches that have been sitting in queue for
over a month instead:
http://patchwork.openwrt.org/patch/4931/
or at least this small bug fix:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:31:48 +0100, Jiri Slachta slac...@cesnet.cz wrote:
Hi,
almost the same patch submitted a while ago was rejected. I do not think your
patch will be accepted, see:
http://patchwork.openwrt.org/patch/4832/
Jiri
On March 26, 2014 6:16:44 PM CET, Darren Lissimore
On 2014-03-27 09:18, Catalin Patulea wrote:
Dude, *you* committed this fix 10 days ago:
http://openwrt.nanobit.org/changeset/39935/trunk/package/utils/busybox/files/sysntpd
Yeah, I don't keep track all the random minor changes that I merge while
I'm working on bigger stuff. I didn't have to try
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Bastian Bittorf bitt...@bluebottle.com wrote:
* Jonas Gorski j...@openwrt.org [26.03.2014 20:18]:
+proto_dhcpv6_renew() {
+ local interface=$1
+ # SIGUSR1 forces odhcp6c to renew its lease
+ proto_kill_command $interface 16
SIGUSR1 is
Hi,
i am working on a new update for fstools that implements ubi properly
via gluebi. this is a rather large rework and will take another 1-2
weeks till ready.
John
On 26/03/2014 22:31, André Valentin wrote:
Normally a jffs fs start with a know marker. If ubi is used, the
partition
Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa helmut.sc...@googlemail.com
---
Changes in v2: Tell netifd core that we have a renew handler
Changes in v3: Translate signal numbers using kill -l
package/network/ipv6/odhcp6c/files/dhcpv6.sh | 9 +
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git
Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa helmut.sc...@googlemail.com
---
Changes in v2: Tell netifd core that we have a renew handler
Changes in v3: Translate signal numbers using kill -l
package/network/config/netifd/files/lib/netifd/proto/dhcp.sh | 9 +
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git
Hi!
Thanks for your info! I am curious about how you solve this :-)
André
On 27.03.2014 10:35, John Crispin wrote:
Hi,
i am working on a new update for fstools that implements ubi properly
via gluebi. this is a rather large rework and will take another 1-2
weeks till ready.
John
Hi,
r40295 should fix #15357
Can someone try to verify that it is indeed fixed now ?
below are my test results
John
root@OpenWrt:/# uci show system.@system[-1].log_size
system.cfg02e48a.log_size=1024
root@OpenWrt:/# while true; do logger
* Bastian Bittorf bitt...@bluebottle.com [24.03.2014 10:35]:
which file i have to edit for enforcing the build of uboot-MLO for panda-es?
i changed my local u-boot version to 2014.04-rc2 and this build
a working 'u-boot.img' + 'MLO' (2nd stage bootloader) - but even with
kernel 3.13 or 3.14-rc8
Hi Felix
We're recently come up against a problem whereby when you switch protocol to
3G/PPPoE, and then switch back to DHCP on the WAN interface, netifd is
failing to bring up the WAN interface.
I've tracked it down to a line inside /lib/netifd/dhcp.script:
proto_init_update * 1
On 12/01/14 21:17, John Crispin wrote:
lets see if they actually contact us or if it was a marketing hoax
Following up to my question on IRC, just in case requisite eyes weren't
there when I asked:
me any news on the belkin devbox seeding yet?
jow_laptop vdotplaw: belkin devbox seeding ?
Signed-off-by: Hans Dedecker dedec...@gmail.com
---
package/network/config/netifd/files/lib/netifd/proto/dhcp.sh | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/package/network/config/netifd/files/lib/netifd/proto/dhcp.sh
17 matches
Mail list logo
