On 21/07/18 09:44, Thibaut wrote:
Le 21 juil. 2018 à 09:24, John Crispin <[email protected]> a écrit :
On 19/07/18 20:08, Thibaut wrote:
On 19 Jul 2018, at 19:52, Mathias Kresin <[email protected]> wrote:
2018-07-19 19:26 GMT+02:00 Thibaut VARÈNE <[email protected]>:
faf94d926e2810f895f2a98d4a49ee2fe8f673e8 added "support" for a hacked
device where the original boot loader (routerboot) has been replaced
by u-boot.
Support for this device with stock bootloader is possible (as evidenced
by support for the RBM33G), and conflicts with this code.
Remove code before release.
Signed-off-by: Thibaut VARÈNE <[email protected]>
FYI, I already NAK'ed the very same patch on github.
I do agree that it can be done better by not requiring the replacement
of the bootloader. Nevertheless, support for this board is already
shipped since LEDE-17.01 and I don't agree to drop support for a board
without providing an alternative/fixed/better image.
Just to clarify: this is not “support”. This is a user created custom hack that
applies only to their modified board.
T.
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Hi,
I agree that proper support for none modified boards is far better and I am
always for having such support in tree. what i am failing to understand here is
why it is so important to remove this support or none-support patch from the
tree ? in general our stance was that if there is at least one user we'll try
to carry the functionality as long as we can. So why not remove this when a
better replacement is in place ?
Because there will be no replacement and I certainly don’t want to confuse the
end users into thinking there will be one.
I don’t know yet another way to say this more clearly: this patch doesn’t “drop
support”: support was _never there_. There will be no “replacement”: there is
no upgrade path.
What this patch does is dropping bad code. What there will be is proper,
correct NEW support for the hardware this code /pretends/ to offer support for
but doesn’t.
At the end of the day the device covered by this code is a /different/ device
than the one support will be provided for. It’s A Frankendevice, that by the
way doesn’t even pass the “hardware available?” question. The installation
instructions on the wiki do not even provision a way to revert the hack.
On a side note, if it’s a policy to support every user hack and bastardized
hardware for which there is only one user _in tree_, then we have a fundamental
difference in opinion and I’m afraid openwrt is then inflicting on itself a
maintenance nightmare it can’t afford.
My 2c,
T
well, that certainly killed the discussion ....
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
