From: "Daniel F. Dickinson"
With PER_DEVICE_ROOTFS on ath79 and brcm2708 package/install step fails
because it cannot satisfy the dependency on iw. The quick solution
(this patch) is to add DEFAULT:=y if cfg80211 to Package/iw. A better
solution would be to defer installation to imagebuilder, o
On 2018-08-13 01:51 AM, Eric Luehrsen wrote:
> On 08/13/2018 01:29 AM, Daniel F. Dickinson wrote:
>> Posting on list as I think the discussion should include as folks as
>> possible in the discussion.
>>
>> https://github.com/openwrt/packages/issues/6745
>>
>>> Especially when getting started with
On 2018-07-05 06:51 AM, Yousong Zhou wrote:
OpenSSL defaults X509_CERT_FILE to /etc/ssl/cert.pem. This change is
needed for wget-ssl and possibly others to work seamlessly with fresh
ca-bundle installation
Out of curiosity will this eliminate the need for installing both
ca-bundle and ca-cert
On 2018-05-27 06:11 AM, Alberto Bursi wrote:
On 27/05/2018 03:56, Daniel F. Dickinson wrote:
On 2018-05-26 05:17 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
"Daniel F. Dickinson" writes:
1) How many people have their own mail server and can do *server-side*
mail filtering
You do not need your own mail server
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:06:22 -0500
"Hauke Mehrtens" wrote:
> We had multiple meetings to find a solution to solve the problems
> between the OpenWrt and the LEDE project and to discuss a possible
> merge. Everyone with commit access to LEDE and all OpenWrt core
> developers were invited to these
Hi all,
Sorry for my last couple of messages, I'm re-implementing my delay
mechanism so that I don't mess things up again; I do want to help both
OpenWrt and LEDE, not create another bad situation; maybe in a week or
few the things I'm dealing with will be sorted enough to remove that.
At this po
Hi OpenWrt Developers,
I've obviously done a lot of damage when I was dealing with the result
of workplace issues combined with medical issues affecting the mind,
combined with frustration of being ignored or getting flack for patches
I tried to submit, without realistic changes that could be made
Hi,
Several months after the split it looks like things have pretty much
ended up where they were before the split. It's starting to look like
the talk of encouraging new blood, and being more open and transparent
was more talk than real intention. As much as I've gotten busy with
personal issue
On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 11:39 -0700, Michael Heimpold wrote:
> Hi,
> could you please elaborate, why do you think that /srv is a more FHS-
> compliant choice? I agree, that /usr is really the wrong place to put
> data there, but according to my understanding of the FHS, /srv is not
> even better, bec
On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 14:42 +0200, 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 respon
iVBORw0KGgoNSUhEUgAAADAwAQMAAABtzGvEBlBMVEX///8AAABVwtN+eklEQVQY04XQzQ2EIBAF4IdMDIc5UAIlUIKlWMr0ZiMm28jOj+6iMXEOfBBmXgJAVLGlBkU3wcZ9I3Q7EdrAveowx6hZ0q6QJDsRnHlJwr+W4CHF7vLqTEenXABeUnSssbP8SdwdjTHEwcFDtQGKFuWjH8Lna8vAmfEF3NMPdAOsBscASUVORK5CYII=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 11:29 +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> hope you're doing well nowadays.
>
> I sincerely appreciate your participation in the discussions surrounding
> the whole OpenWrt/LEDE topic especially since it helps giving another,
> outside perspective to the entire is
Sorry sent from the wrong email address, not sure where it it actually
got posted and where not.
Hi Oswald,
I'm sorry I suggested you were an unrealistic idealogue, and for
questioning your credentials; while I haven't verified them I'm sure you
do have more experience than I gave you credit for,
Hi,
Might I humbly submit that given the different timezone and the fact
that LEDE claims to be wanting to be transparent, and that remaining
OpenWrt claims to be willing to accept such policies, that Jow's
suggestion of doing the discussion openly on the openwrt-devel and
lede-dev mailings lists
On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 01:13 -0700, mbm wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Let's see if any of the remaining OpenWrt devs at least publicly support
> > adopting them or some variation of them. As I've said before my
> > impression is that LEDE-style rules are not all that welcomed (and
> > that's based on th
Hi all,
I've recognized I have to do something about my impulse emailing and
have just finished implementing a technical solution that requires me to
verify that really do want to send the mail, and verification can't be
done until a configured amount of time has elapsed.
Hopefully this will keep
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 21:19 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> > > Let's just save such non-sense sense of culture and expectation
> > > discussion in another place.
>
> Perhaps the issue is the notion of a monolithic culture - that is *not*
> what meant. There a
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 20:57 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 08:45 +0800, Yousong Zhou wrote:
> > >
> > > To a certain extent you yourself acknowledge individual opinion (with
> > > you over a beer comment), but you seem to think that s
On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 08:45 +0800, Yousong Zhou wrote:
> >
> > To a certain extent you yourself acknowledge individual opinion (with
> > you over a beer comment), but you seem to think that such a view of
> > individual opinions are not as valid in the public domain, whereas our
> > expectation is
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 23:57 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
[snip]
> Hi,
> >> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
> >> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so on?
> >>
> > This is my personal opinion and this was not somehow internal
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 18:18 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 23:57 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> [snip]
> > Hi,
> > >> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non
> > >> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any
On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 00:23 +0300, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
[snip]
> > I do not plan to contribute much to OpenWrt any more and I do not know
> > if I can commit anything any more, at least it looks like I was kicked
> > from the openwrt-hackers mailing list without informing me.
>
> I believe LEDE
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 16:20 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 16:46 +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> > Hi Luka,
> >
> > this is fantastic news!
> >
> > I'd be very interested in your future progress on the CI front.
> >
>
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 16:46 +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Luka,
>
> this is fantastic news!
>
> I'd be very interested in your future progress on the CI front.
>
Let's just not make the mistake other projects make and turn CI into a
an excuse to not have proper releases and a stablisation
Hi all,
I had a patch that I submitted to the openwrt list sometime back that
launched multiple instances of dnsmasq, so long as the instances were
either tied to specific, non-overlapping, interfaces, or used different
dns port, but at least in the case of different interfaces it only
worked (to
On 16-05-11 06:08 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
>
> breaks something for my boards (in particular arc770-based boards).
> I'm unable to activate console now. That's what I'm getting
> every time I press ENTER:
> ->8-
> Failed to e
On 16-05-11 06:08 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Looks like one recent commit:
[snip]
>
> breaks something for my boards (in particular arc770-based boards).
> I'm unable to activate console now. That's what I'm getting
> every time I press ENTER:
> ->8
Hi List,
For your amusement. Anyone want to PandoraBox is using OpenWrt ;-)
(That is I have no affilation with PandoraBox; their CI screwed up).
Regards,
Daniel
Forwarded Message
Subject: Build failed in Jenkins: PandoraBoxFireware »
PandoraBox_Build_Beta » MT7628,Linux #14
On 16-05-06 07:53 AM, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2016 18:24:09 +0200, Daniel Dickinson
> wrote:
>
>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome,
>>> but
>
Hi Imre,
I'm doing this a lot lately. I'm sorry for publicly making guesses,
stating impressions that were not fair to you. I do not know what the
truth is and trying divine the information with the little information I
have doesn't work, and is not fair.
Sorry.
Regards,
Daniel
__
had guesses but now I'm second guessing my guesses, and really it
shouldn't be a guessing game, particularly since both sides claim to be
interested in transparency and the best interests of the community.
C'mon, can we have more than political statements, please?
On 16-05-05 11:42 PM
I think David Lang makes a lot of sense; it took years to reach this
point, better to carry on independently, but working together as much as
can be managed, and let time both settle the dust and demonstrate which
ideas really pan out.
Add to this that with years of toxic arguments (as acknowledge
Hi all,
I know other community members of complained about the lack of
information about the reasons for the fork (they and I don't think
LEDE's official announcement really provides enough information to
really understand the situation) and I especially do badly in a vacuum -
I tend to strain to
Hi all,
Sorry for sounding off so much yet again. I've been trying to interpret
events with a severe lack of information and have unfavourable guesses
and impressions that may or may not be accurate.
I do know that some of the developers have a history of not getting
along, and that has hurt the
On 16-05-05 03:22 PM, mbm wrote:
> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
>> Set
Might I submit that my impression is that Kaloz (at least) holds
infrastructure hostage to maintain control, and that the fundamental
problem here is that OpenWrt is *not* democratic and ignores what people
who were ones visibly working on openwrt want and overrides their wishes
because he/they has
On 16-05-05 01:49 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 20:09, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>>> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>&
On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>>> [snip]
[snip]
>> When I say broken I mean I think openwrt was d
On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> [snip]
>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
>> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
>> &
On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
[snip]
> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
> > welcome.
>
> Let's just say that there are strong personalities who haven't be
On 16-05-05 11:38 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede
> guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
> leadership privately that they were planning this venture. The surprise
The problem is that LEDE is pretty much
On 16-05-05 11:24 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 11:11 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>> the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email
>> addresses somewhat undermines this
>>
>> Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org
>
> --John
>
>
> On 5/5/16 11:04 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>> On 5 May 2016 at 17:43, Daniel Dickinson
>> wrote:
>>> On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>>>> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
>>> Dear OpenWrt community,
>>>
[snip]
>
> One simple question:
> If LEDE team members are the ones who were suffering from
On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
> Dear OpenWrt community,
>
> spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the
> project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both
> vague and misleading and the LEDE project failed to identify its true
> nature. The LEDE a
On 16-05-04 07:59 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> Just curious to know by the names that signed the announcement of the
> new project being know OpenWrt Developers why weren't there enough votes
> inside OpenWrt to do this reboot and reorganize it completely under the
> LEDE Project ideas ?
I don't
Hi,
How does one get in touch with Felix these days? n...@openwrt.org
bounces for me.
Regards,
Daniel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
On 16-05-04 07:21 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-04 07:01 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
>>>
>>> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> It also seems to me (as an outsider) that those who do contribute are
> small open-sour
On 16-05-04 07:32 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
>
> Daniel I fully concur that industry "give back" is severely lacking.
> It seems to me that the bigger the company, the less likely they are
> to give back. One of the goals of the prpl Foundation was to help big
> industry members to better "see" that p
On 16-05-04 07:01 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>>>
>>> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
>>> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow m
On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
>
> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>>
>> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
>> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as
>> being as concrete examples of companies contributing back t
On 16-05-04 12:25 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
> Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
> industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
> OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
> this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion
>
> please us an id between 0-999. ideally check what debian uses.
>
For most system services, with a very small number exceptions, debian
auto-assigns id < 500(?), and which service gets id depends on order of
package installation (which can be hassle with when trying to do network
filesystems)
On 16-03-30 02:48 AM, Michal Hrusecky wrote:
Yep, I understand all those. My question was whether upgrade all is disabled
just because of this ideological stuff and in hope that users wouldn't find and
try one of the posts I linked or whether there is anything really broken.
It's *not* ideolog
matic over the past two to
three years, and this is why it was disconcerting to come back from
hiatus and have things be so different from what I recall.
Regards,
Daniel
On Mar 29, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Daniel Dickinson
wrote:
Hi all,
I realized what part of my frustration (aside from medicall
Hi all,
I realized what part of my frustration (aside from medically causes
reasons for oversensitivity) is that what I wanted from OpenWrt is not
what OpenWrt is anymore. I was looking for the old days of GNU/Linux
when most everyone was playing and sharing the results of playing to
benefit
Hi all,
As you might have noticed I am currently in a state of heightened
sensitivity to things like being ignored and getting only negative
feedback, which does not work when dealing with trying to participate in
getting patches into openwrt at the present time.
So I've come up with a solut
On 23/02/16 02:31 AM, John Crispin wrote:
On 23/02/2016 08:23, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
I am reprioritizing my project queue and as my attempts at openwrt
contributions get either curt/rude (sorry John, I know you complain
about my wordiness, but for the majority of world who aren't r
I am reprioritizing my project queue and as my attempts at openwrt
contributions get either curt/rude (sorry John, I know you complain
about my wordiness, but for the majority of world who aren't robots
*excessive* brevity comes across as rude and maybe even hostile, which
is why openwrt has su
Clarification: ar71xx is fully tested, I've build-tested some others,
but other than ar71xx I have no means to fully verify builds.
Regards,
Daniel
On 16/02/16 02:47 AM, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
No comment on previous send of this version, tested and working, hence resend.
This pa
having lxc specific hooks sprayed over a pile a scripts is the
wrong approach, so NAK on this one.
John
On 16/02/2016 08:03, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
I have a patch that it will be some time before I personally will have some time
to test but have noted
Hi,
As I still don't have working patchwork and the patchwork admin hasn't
gotten back to me on the issue, could you drop the patches from
patchwork for removing using of ifconfig/route in favour of ip.
I looked at the actual size of ifconfig/route (<5k) and concluded that
for the amount of
I was expecting on differentiated
vlans.
Regards,
Daniel
On 14/02/16 01:44 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi all,
I discovered through that despite over 23 GB of upload in past 24 hours
that neither vnstat nor collectd are reporting even close to that amount
traffic on the lan side.
I didn'
Hi all,
I discovered through that despite over 23 GB of upload in past 24 hours
that neither vnstat nor collectd are reporting even close to that amount
traffic on the lan side.
I didn't have wan reporting statistics on vnstat, so that side of things
is missing, but the lan traffic for the r
On 01/02/16 02:57 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 03:49:58PM -0800, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
On 21/01/16 02:31 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-01-20 20:22, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
NB: Only compile tested.
Based on live testing it
On 21/01/16 02:31 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-01-20 20:22, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
NB: Only compile tested.
Based on live testing it appears that openvpn upstream does not work
properly at least with the busybox ip applet, but likely also with full
On 30/01/16 02:39 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-01-30 05:55, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
It worked with a /24 subnet but that might be because of defaults. I do
not currently have test bed for testing other configurations.
I plan on setting that up once I'm back from travelling.
Please
Sorry, I've been out of the country and not had a chance to get to this.
I had planned to do that for the packages you previously requested
changes for that I had proposed a unified symlink handling solution to
deal with what is rather a mess at the moment, but have been obviously
rather busy
open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
v3: Drop comment thanking user who gave mask2cidr at their
request
: Fix echo had correct CIDR but actual command did not
: Fix style issue
: Use full -family in ip command line instead of -f
v2: Also update previously missed deconfig u
Hi Felix (or anyone else who knows netifd)
For a netifd protocol is there way to tell netifd to *not*
automatically try to restart the connection?
I'm asking for the case of VPN where if the password it wrong (e.g. due
to an stoken that expires before the connection completes), too many
rep
Hi Felix,
On 21/01/16 05:28 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
done
append ${prefix}q "$(tcrules)" "$N"
- export dev_${dir}="ifconfig $dev up txqueuelen 5 >&- 2>&-
+ export dev_${dir}="ip link set $dev up txqueuelen 5 >&- 2>&-
This doesn't actua
On 21/01/16 05:28 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-01-20 20:22, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
This is the final package in base that depends on ifconfig, so
remove the the dependency on ifconfig and replace ifconfig
command with ip command. After packages there
On 20/01/16 04:24 AM, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
please dont double-fallback. It's ok to have it once default to '255.255.255.0',
so just use $prefix
The second fallback is in case the interpolation fails.
ok, i will not discuss this and accept.
On second thought I don't like relying on ipcalc
On 20/01/16 04:24 AM, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
* Daniel Dickinson [20.01.2016 10:18]:
+ local prefix="$(
+ eval "$(ipcalc.sh 0.0.0.0 ${subnet:-255.255.255.0})"
+ echo -n $PREFIX
dont use '-n'
Why not? It prevents echo from emi
On 20/01/16 02:10 AM, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
* open...@daniel.thecshore.com [20.01.2016
07:21]:
@@ -5,30 +5,34 @@ set_classless_routes() {
local max=128
local type
thanks for that, i have it also on my todo-list.
please remove also the 'local type' here.
Missed that.
On 19/01/16 05:04 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
[snip]
[legacy UBI_OPTS targets]
Please don't add extra abstractions to this code. The
$(PROFILE)_UBI_OPTS stuff is legacy crap and any target still using it
should just stay that way and not get multi-profile selection until it
is converted to the
On 19/01/16 02:22 AM, Etienne Champetier wrote:
Hi
You should respond to the original mail and not create a new thread each
time
Sorry, didn't have it handy to reply to.
>
> Hi John,
>
> Contrary to what you believed it is not possible for the ordinary
users (of which I am one at the mom
Hi John,
Contrary to what you believed it is not possible for the ordinary users
(of which I am one at the moment) to modify their own patches, so I
can't discard, archive, or otherwise do anything to patches even my own.
Regards,
Daniel
___
openwr
Hi,
Just to ping again on registration problem with patchwork. I had
created an account which was supposed to send a confirmation email,
however the confirmation email never got sent (and is *not* in spam
folder), and I cannot request new confirmation, nor is there a 'I forgot
my password' o
Hi all,
I have noticed an unintended consequence of building all profiles for a
single target at once: All profiles get all packages marked as 'y' as a
consquence of dependencies of *any* profile being built.
This is true even before the code I'm doing to build multiple profiles
and is a con
Apparently my tree got trashed and I need to do distclean. Sorry for
the noise.
Regards,
Daniel
On 14/01/16 11:25 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Ah, ok, so there likley there are are pobablly not any working *stock*
devices. That merits the @BROKEN flag - if you're running modified
har
l WRT54GLs upgraded to 8MB Flash and 64MB
RAM...
Regards, Arnd
On 01/14/2016 04:31 PM, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
To my knowledge there are no working images, nor a way to get them,
even using maximum stripping and dropping of packages, kmods, and
compile options
t on trunk. (And I tried cutting *way* back on things that increase
image, well below normal OpenWrt).
Regards,
Daniel
On 14/01/16 10:59 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
On 14 January 2016 at 17:31, wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
To my knowledge there are no working images, nor a way to get
Patchwork failed to send confirmation email to my email address, for the
account cshore AND there is not password reset option, nor means to
re-request confirmation email AND it won't let me register an already
registered email address AND I can't login because the account is
'inactive' (probab
ages.
Regards,
Daniel
On 13/01/16 12:26 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-01-13 18:04, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking at the 'Default' profiles in architectures and as far as I
can tell the only architecture that currently uses Default to mean
'build all profiles for thi
As per Felix's suggestion I have implemented a detection of 'in lxc'
logic and modified base-files and busybox sysntpd script to use that
check to avoid actions inappropriate for an LXC guest, and to act
normally otherwise. The patch still needs to be tested as an LXC guest,
but causes no misb
, but I
don't see how default builds more than single image).
Any clarity on this?
Regards,
Daniel
On 11/01/16 08:35 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-01-11 06:16, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
Certain platforms have large numbers of possible images, and i
the compile section is non-trivial due to number of way in
which compile sections come into being (i.e. there is no single
convenient place to alter the compile target).
Regards,
Daniel
On 11/01/16 05:21 AM, open...@lists.openwrt.org wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
If packages have already
the compile section is non-trivial due to number of way in
which compile sections come into being (i.e. there is no single
convenient place to alter the compile target).
Regards,
Daniel
On 11/01/16 05:21 AM, open...@lists.openwrt.org wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
If packages have already
Hi Felix,
On 11/01/16 03:28 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> This is close to what I had in mind in my earlier response. Yes, it's
> ugly, but it's a lot less ugly than taking your approach without dealing
> with the issues that I pointed out.
Since a bit of ugliness for improved user experience seems
On 11/01/16 04:05 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-01-11 20:27, Eric Schultz wrote:
Felix,
Would it be unreasonable to have overridable defaults like suggested in
metadata.pl? Convention over configuration and all that.
I don't understand what you're asking. Could you elaborate?
To be honest
but it's rather ugly IMO.
Regards,
Daniel
On 11/01/16 08:35 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2016-01-11 06:16, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
From: Daniel Dickinson
Certain platforms have large numbers of possible images, and it can be
desirable to build neither all images nor only a
On 11/01/16 08:35 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
Signed-off-by: Daniel Dickinson
---
scripts/metadata.pl | 32 +---
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/metadata.pl b/scripts/metadata.pl
index 48b1b7a..4487d26 100755
--- a/scripts
I don't actually). I think it must have been in
combination with some other error that I misremembered.
I just check both bash and ash (and the docs) and they 'do the right
thing'.
Regards,
Daniel
On 11/01/16 03:19 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi,
On 10/01/16 06:42 AM, bittorf
Hmmm...actually this may be a case of an old non-POSIX conformant shell
I once had to work in.
Anyway any modern POSIX-compliant shell doesn't have this issue.
Regards,
Daniel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lis
ds,
Daniel
On 11/01/16 03:19 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
Hi,
On 10/01/16 06:42 AM, bittorf wireless )) Bastian Bittorf wrote:
+
+start() {
+if [ -e /dev/rtc ]; then
+hwclock -s
please use the short form [ -e /dev/rtc ] && ...
Per private mail I've learned this is t
Hi,
On 10/01/16 06:42 AM, bittorf wireless )) Bastian Bittorf wrote:
+
+start() {
+ if [ -e /dev/rtc ]; then
+ hwclock -s
please use the short form [ -e /dev/rtc ] && ...
Per private mail I've learned this is the current codebase standard, so
will follow that, but the r
I have confirmed that the issue that lead to my issuing the patch for
polarssl download location is not an OpenWrt issue. That patch can be
removed from Patchwork.
Regards,
Daniel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https:
On 10/01/16 06:15 PM, Sami Olmari wrote:
It might seem smallest of problems, but whitespace problems really
causes an problems many times... "half of" stuff rely on correct
You're right, and I think the reason I overreacted is that I have been
subconsciously frustrated for quite some time by h
On 10/01/16 12:27 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2016-01-10 08:10, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote:
>> From: Daniel Dickinson
>>
>> Fix the download location to the new location of the source archive
>> because the URI has change and redirect from the old URI is wron
1 - 100 of 404 matches
Mail list logo
