Hello, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 01:28 +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: >> I would like to contribute a package to OpenWrt that we have developed and >> successfully use commercially. > > It appears that your patch is the entire source from your project, yes? > Is your software distributed as a tarball release in usual open source > fashion as well?
Well, only the three packages together, including their OpenWrt Makefiles (but excluding the sources of qrencode library). I haven't made any attempts at making the software portable beyond OpenWrt; right now it is very OpenWrt-specific and I don't see that changing. The link to the source distribution is this, but it is rarely used, if ever: https://www.epointsystem.org/openwrt/sources/hotspot-0.4.13.tar.gz Thus far, our software was distributed as a separate OpenWrt feed (with liberally granting access to our svn for those who asked for it): https://www.epointsystem.org/trac/vending_machine/wiki/BuildingPackage > As you may have noticed, many packages are made of a Makefile that > points to a downloadable tarball of a package (i.e. rather than > including the whole source), some rules on how to build the package > after unpacking the tarball and possibly some patches that need to be > applied after unpacking but prior to build. > > I think the benefit to this method is that you don't have to try to get > the openwrt devs to push changes you make in your source all the time > but rather just changes to the currently released version pointed to in > the Makefile. > > Would that suit your package better perhaps? That is an interesting question and honestly, I have never considered it, since our software does not make much sense outside of the context of OpenWrt. We don't even have separate packages for the stuff itself and its LuCI management interface, because there is no clear line where the two could be separated. If LuCi changes (is it is expected to change), we need to change with it. And we are already actively preparing for it. As I have mentioned, our software is very OpenWrt-specific. We, as a company, are perfectly willing to maintain it within the framework of OpenWrt with either myself or the developer (his name is Rooslan Khayrov), who actually wrote most of the code, acting as the package maintainer. Of course, the above does not hold for the Code128 barcode stuff, which I am perfectly prepared to rip out into a separate source tarball. But what would you recommend with the rest that is entirely dependent on OpenWrt? The only other piece of software that is so heavily OpenWrt-dependent that I can think of is LuCI, which gets its own feed outside of the packages feed. As you can see, we have also taken that approach, but would it be appropriate to ask to have our feed incorporated rather than just a package? It surely looks strange and pretentious to me. Thanks in advance for your suggestions! -- Daniel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
