Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

2016-06-07 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen 
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:42:36PM +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are
> yet to see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to
> happen in OpenWrt. 
>
i don't think you'll get anything more official than jow's mail from may
26. i'll freely admit that it's somewhat lacking regarding directly
actionable "strategic" items, but you guys gave no (public) indication
that you're even interested in an actual dialog at all. the statements
regarding the canceled email forwards don't exactly help, either
(seriously, who's supposed to buy that?!).

> The OpenWrt team
>
this way to communicate is part of the explicitly stated problems which
lede is trying to address (and failing at inception, but hey, let's get
over this tiny faux pas already ^^).
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

2016-06-07 Thread David Lang 

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Eric Schultz wrote:


Zoltan,

I'm pleased to hear there's been some movement. Does this mean that OpenWrt
is going to have releases while LEDE will not?


Considering that LEDE folks recently posted a "what's blocking the release" 
message, this would be extremely unlikely.


I am very interested in seeing what OpenWRT is going to be doing next. I hope 
that it's more than just pulling patches from LEDE. That's a perfectly 
legitimate thing to do, but would be rather limiting in what value OpenWRT would 
be providing.


And if it is the viewpoint of OpenWRT that LEDE is an experimental testbed (the 
way that Fedora is seen as a testbed for RHEL), then people should not be told 
to go away if a lede question is posted on the OpenWRT forums (something I've 
seen a few times so far)


David Lang


Eric

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:42 AM, 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 responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list.  Is it
lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and
reasonable dialogue in public, or something else?  I admit that for all
the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency
in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the
remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my
mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency
to the less than generous suspicions, now).




Hi Daniel,

May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are yet to
see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to happen in
OpenWrt (setting aside the FUD some LEDE members have shown on the list).
The IRC discussion did not happen due to being unable to work out the
timezone differences, the conversation on the mailing list did not move
forward - this is obviously an issue on our side as well.

The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the
OpenWrt team is:


Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for
new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away
from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this,
to let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to
all contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no
objections but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github
move later this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors.

What we would like is to:
- Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their
targets,
- Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite.
Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite
confusing.

We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get
trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE
patches will also be brought in where appropriate.

Regards,
The OpenWrt team

___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel





___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd: Enable Interworking (802.11u) and Hotspot 2.0 Support

2016-06-07 Thread Bima Hutama 
  -Description:
It enables functionality to improve interworking with external networks
(GAS/ANQP to learn more about the networks and network selection based 
on available credentials).
I figured out that it was actually not activated yet in hostapd. It 
enables hostapd to support
802.11u standard just like modern AP which implements Hospot 2.0 based 
on 802.11u. The example
of this is Telekom Germany who provides its customers the roaming 
capability to their WIFI-hotspots
by authentication with EAP-SIM (from SIM card of the customer's mobile 
devices), so that the customers
can connect automatically to telekom-802.11u-capable hotspots encrypted 
and without human assistance.
Activating Hotspot 2.0 allows AP to provides more specific informations 
and services based on 802.11u.
Wiki and uci configuration will be made for this.

  -Changelog:
Add CONFIG_INTERWORKING=y and CONFIG_HS20=y.

Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama 
---
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 8 
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
index 09bdb88..2750315 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
@@ -174,3 +174,11 @@ CONFIG_TLSV11=y
 
 # Add wpa_supplicant support for TLS version 1.2
 CONFIG_TLSV12=y
+
+# Interworking (IEEE 802.11u)
+# This can be used to enable functionality to improve interworking with
+# external networks.
+CONFIG_INTERWORKING=y
+
+# Hotspot 2.0
+CONFIG_HS20=y
-- 
2.1.4
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd: Enable TLSv1.1 and TLSv1.2 Support

2016-06-07 Thread Bima Hutama 
  -Description:
Enable wpa_supplicant support for TLS version 1.1 and 1.2.

  -Changelog:
1) Adding CONFIG_TLSV11=y
2) Adding CONFIG_TLSV12=y

Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama 
---
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 6 ++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
index f500368..09bdb88 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
@@ -168,3 +168,9 @@ CONFIG_NO_RANDOM_POOL=y
 CONFIG_FULL_DYNAMIC_VLAN=y
 
 CONFIG_UBUS=y
+
+# Add wpa_supplicant support for TLS version 1.1
+CONFIG_TLSV11=y
+
+# Add wpa_supplicant support for TLS version 1.2
+CONFIG_TLSV12=y
-- 
2.1.4
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd:Bring Back Dumping internal State

2016-06-07 Thread Bima Hutama 
  -Description:
Since it is full version of hostapd, there is no need to disable this 
functionality as
the new devices are getting more complex and need more debugging 
capabilities.

  -Changelog:
Commenting CONFIG_NO_DUMP_STATE=y.

Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama 
---
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
index da4c6e7..f500368 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ CONFIG_INTERNAL_AES=y
 NEED_AES_DEC=y
 
 CONFIG_NO_RANDOM_POOL=y
-CONFIG_NO_DUMP_STATE=y
+#CONFIG_NO_DUMP_STATE=y
 
 CONFIG_FULL_DYNAMIC_VLAN=y
 
-- 
2.1.4
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd: Add Support to Separate Debug from Syslog

2016-06-07 Thread Bima Hutama 
  -Description:
By enabling "-f " argument we can separate Debug to one 
file rather
than merge it with syslog. It makes hostapd debugging easier to read in 
one file
rather than analyse the whole syslog. Wiki and config support will be 
made for this.

  -Changelog:
Adding CONFIG_DEBUG_FILE=y.

Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama 
---
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
index e63800d..da4c6e7 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
@@ -146,6 +146,8 @@ CONFIG_IEEE80211AC=y
 # code is not needed.
 #CONFIG_NO_STDOUT_DEBUG=y
 
+CONFIG_DEBUG_FILE=y
+
 # Remove support for RADIUS accounting
 #CONFIG_NO_ACCOUNTING=y
 
-- 
2.1.4
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd: Enable EAP-SIM Support for 802.11u with Simcard

2016-06-07 Thread Bima Hutama 
  -Description:
*Because it is hostapd, it is recommended to apply this patch as AP mode 
with 802.11u.*
***
Many modern AP who implements Hotspot 2.0 (802.11u standard) need
capability to authenticate client automatically from the installed
SIM-card in clients mobile phones. Example of this is Telekom Germany,
who implements roaming of their "Telekom"-Wifi for their customers with 
hotspot 2.0.
The customers handphone which supports Hotspot 2.0 will connect 
automatically to
Telekom hotspot and for the authentication it implements EAP-SIM,
which means the handphones use the Telekom-SIM-Card to authenticate
automatically with Telekom hotspot. For hostapd in AP, it needs to be 
enabled otherwise
standard 802.11u will not correctly implemented in that case.

  -Changelog:
Enable CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y.

Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama 
---
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
index 1a11f6c..e63800d 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ CONFIG_EAP_GTC=y
 CONFIG_EAP_TTLS=y
 
 # EAP-SIM for the integrated EAP server
-#CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y
+CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y
 
 # EAP-AKA for the integrated EAP server
 #CONFIG_EAP_AKA=y
-- 
2.1.4
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd: Enable EAP Re-authentication Protocol

2016-06-07 Thread Bima Hutama 
  -Description:
Enable EAP Re-authentication Protocol in integrated EAP server.

  -Changelog:
Adding CONFIG_EAP=y.

Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama 
---
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
index c8e9521..1a11f6c 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
@@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ CONFIG_PEERKEY=y
 # Integrated EAP server
 CONFIG_EAP=y
 
+# EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) in integrated EAP server
+CONFIG_ERP=y
+
 # EAP-MD5 for the integrated EAP server
 CONFIG_EAP_MD5=y
 
-- 
2.1.4
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] wpa_supplicant: GNU Readline and History Support for command line

2016-06-07 Thread Bima Hutama 
  -Description:
Include support for GNU Readline and History Libraries in wpa_cli. By 
enabling
this, we will get history support for wpa_cli, so that 
wpa_cli-interactive-mode
interprets up and down key as historical commands rather than just 
not-interpretable
"^[[A" or "^[[B" strings.

  -Changelog:
Enabling CONFIG_READLINE=y.

Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama 
---
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
index 441eab1..dd1ef8c 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ CONFIG_CTRL_IFACE=y
 # When building a wpa_cli binary for distribution, please note that these
 # libraries are licensed under GPL and as such, BSD license may not apply for
 # the resulting binary.
-#CONFIG_READLINE=y
+CONFIG_READLINE=y
 
 # Remove debugging code that is printing out debug message to stdout.
 # This can be used to reduce the size of the wpa_supplicant considerably
-- 
2.1.4
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] wpa_supplicant: Support HT and VHT Overrides

2016-06-07 Thread Bima Hutama 
  -Description:
It enables wpa_supplicant to overrides HT and VHT (disable HT/HT40, 
mask MCS rates, etc.)
in wpa_supplicant configuration file.
NB: Openwrt wiki and settings for uci would be made (from me), if this 
patch was applied.

  -Changelog:
Enabling CONFIG_HT_OVERRIDES=y and CONFIG_VHT_OVERRIDES=y.

Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama 
---
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config | 6 ++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
index 27a7820..441eab1 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
@@ -200,6 +200,12 @@ CONFIG_SMARTCARD=y
 # Enable this if EAP-SIM or EAP-AKA is included
 CONFIG_PCSC=y
 
+# Support HT overrides (disable HT/HT40, mask MCS rates, etc.)
+CONFIG_HT_OVERRIDES=y
+
+# Support VHT overrides (disable VHT, mask MCS rates, etc.)
+CONFIG_VHT_OVERRIDES=y
+
 # Development testing
 #CONFIG_EAPOL_TEST=y
 
-- 
2.1.4
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH v2] wpa_supplicant: Enable EAP-SIM Support for 802.11u with Simcard

2016-06-07 Thread Bima Hutama 
  -Description:
Many modern AP who implements Hotspot 2.0 (802.11u standard) need
capability to authenticate client automatically from the installed
SIM-card in clients mobile phones. Example of this is Telekom Germany,
who implements roaming of their "Telekom"-Wifi for their customers with 
hotspot 2.0.
The customers handphone which supports Hotspot 2.0 will connect 
automatically to
Telekom hotspot and for the authentication it implements EAP-SIM,
which means the handphones use the Telekom-SIM-Card to authenticate
automatically with Telekom hotspot. this supplicant config needs to be 
enabled otherwise
standard 802.11u will not correctly implemented in that case.

According to the actual defconfig, CONFIG_PCSC=y should also be 
activated if EAP-SIM or EAP-AKA
is activated:

# PC/SC interface for smartcards (USIM, GSM SIM)
# Enable this if EAP-SIM or EAP-AKA is included
#CONFIG_PCSC=y

  -Changelog:
v1: Enabling CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y
v2: Enabling CONFIG_PCSC=y as implication of v1

Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama 
---
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
index e653212..27a7820 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ CONFIG_EAP_GTC=y
 CONFIG_EAP_OTP=y
 
 # EAP-SIM (enable CONFIG_PCSC, if EAP-SIM is used)
-#CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y
+CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y
 
 # EAP-PSK (experimental; this is _not_ needed for WPA-PSK)
 #CONFIG_EAP_PSK=y
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ CONFIG_SMARTCARD=y
 
 # PC/SC interface for smartcards (USIM, GSM SIM)
 # Enable this if EAP-SIM or EAP-AKA is included
-#CONFIG_PCSC=y
+CONFIG_PCSC=y
 
 # Development testing
 #CONFIG_EAPOL_TEST=y
-- 
2.1.4
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] wpa_supplicant: Enable EAP-SIM Support for 802.11u with Simcard

2016-06-07 Thread Bima Hutama 
  -Description:
Many modern AP who implements Hotspot 2.0 (802.11u standard) need
capability to authenticate client automatically from the installed
SIM-card in clients mobile phones. Example of this is Telekom Germany,
who implements roaming of their "Telekom"-Wifi for their customers with 
hotspot 2.0.
The customers handphone which supports Hotspot 2.0 will connect 
automatically to
Telekom hotspot and for the authentication it implements EAP-SIM,
which means the handphones use the Telekom-SIM-Card to authenticate
automatically with Telekom hotspot. this supplicant config needs to be 
enabled otherwise
standard 802.11u will not correctly implemented in that case.

  -Changelog:
Enabling CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y

Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama 
---
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
index e653212..a95e965 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ CONFIG_EAP_GTC=y
 CONFIG_EAP_OTP=y
 
 # EAP-SIM (enable CONFIG_PCSC, if EAP-SIM is used)
-#CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y
+CONFIG_EAP_SIM=y
 
 # EAP-PSK (experimental; this is _not_ needed for WPA-PSK)
 #CONFIG_EAP_PSK=y
-- 
2.1.4
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] hostapd/wpa_supplicant: Remove duplicate configs, spare some bytes

2016-06-07 Thread Bima Hutama 
  -Description:
There were some duplicates entries in full version of supplicant and
hostapd. It removes all duplicates found.

  -Changelog:
Deleting duplicates for CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y and CONFIG_WPS=y.

Signed-off-by: Bima Hutama 
---
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config| 6 +-
 package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config | 5 +
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
index 681e9df..c8e9521 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/hostapd-full.config
@@ -53,9 +53,6 @@ CONFIG_PEERKEY=y
 # Integrated EAP server
 CONFIG_EAP=y
 
-# EAP-FAST for the integrated EAP server
-CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y
-
 # EAP-MD5 for the integrated EAP server
 CONFIG_EAP_MD5=y
 
@@ -103,7 +100,7 @@ CONFIG_EAP_TTLS=y
 # functionality needed for EAP-FAST. If EAP-FAST is enabled with OpenSSL,
 # the OpenSSL library must be patched (openssl-0.9.9-session-ticket.patch)
 # to add the needed functions.
-#CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y
+CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y
 
 # Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS)
 CONFIG_WPS=y
@@ -163,7 +160,6 @@ NEED_AES_DEC=y
 CONFIG_NO_RANDOM_POOL=y
 CONFIG_NO_DUMP_STATE=y
 
-CONFIG_WPS=y
 CONFIG_FULL_DYNAMIC_VLAN=y
 
 CONFIG_UBUS=y
diff --git a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config 
b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
index e23ea4c..e653212 100644
--- a/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
+++ b/package/network/services/hostapd/files/wpa_supplicant-full.config
@@ -121,9 +121,6 @@ CONFIG_DRIVER_WIRED=y
 # included)
 CONFIG_IEEE8021X_EAPOL=y
 
-# EAP-FAST
-CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y
-
 # EAP-MD5
 CONFIG_EAP_MD5=y
 
@@ -144,7 +141,7 @@ CONFIG_EAP_TTLS=y
 # functionality needed for EAP-FAST. If EAP-FAST is enabled with OpenSSL,
 # the OpenSSL library must be patched (openssl-0.9.8d-tls-extensions.patch)
 # to add the needed functions.
-#CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y
+CONFIG_EAP_FAST=y
 
 # EAP-GTC
 CONFIG_EAP_GTC=y
-- 
2.1.4
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

2016-06-07 Thread Eric Schultz 
Zoltan,

I'm pleased to hear there's been some movement. Does this mean that OpenWrt
is going to have releases while LEDE will not?

Eric

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:42 AM, 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 responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list.  Is it
>> lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and
>> reasonable dialogue in public, or something else?  I admit that for all
>> the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency
>> in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the
>> remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my
>> mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency
>> to the less than generous suspicions, now).
>>
>>
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are yet to
> see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to happen in
> OpenWrt (setting aside the FUD some LEDE members have shown on the list).
> The IRC discussion did not happen due to being unable to work out the
> timezone differences, the conversation on the mailing list did not move
> forward - this is obviously an issue on our side as well.
>
> The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the
> OpenWrt team is:
> 
>
> Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for
> new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away
> from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this,
> to let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to
> all contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no
> objections but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github
> move later this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors.
>
> What we would like is to:
> - Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their
> targets,
> - Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite.
> Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite
> confusing.
>
> We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get
> trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE
> patches will also be brought in where appropriate.
>
> Regards,
> The OpenWrt team
>
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>



-- 
Eric Schultz, Community Manager, prpl Foundation
http://www.prplfoundation.org
eschu...@prplfoundation.org
cell: 920-539-0404
skype: ericschultzwi
@EricPrpl
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

2016-06-07 Thread Daniel Golle 
Hi!

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:42:36PM +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> ...
> The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the
> OpenWrt team is:
> 
> 
> Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for
> new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away
> from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this, to
> let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to all

Interesting, has anyone asked you to do this? LEDE keeps merging things
from OpenWrt's tree without any difficulties caused so far. There is
even a formal scheme on how to label commits imported from OpenWrt.

> contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no objections
> but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github move later
> this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors.
> 
> What we would like is to:
> - Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their
> targets,

By posting patches e.g. for the oxnas target which I maintain to the
mailing list and bother John to merge them?
How do you imagine this could work without a transparent procedure on
how people could gain or (be forced to) drop commit access?
Nothing about that is mentioned on
https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/GoverningRules
(and that's apparently still a draft which hasn't ever been approved
by all existing project members, I never ever saw any of that
PGP-signed voting described in there on the mailing list happen in
all the years I'm following it)

> - Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite.
> Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite
> confusing.

Which exact goal are you referring to? Imho a 'split' never happened,
everybody kept contributing to both projects. However, I reckon you
cannot expect people to just get back to work without priorly dealing
with or at least acknowlede the fact that very few people did most of
the work without a clear strategy on how to change that situation.
Moving to github might improve that, but still fails to address the
remaining issues (see http://www.lede-project.org/), such as the
intransparent communication and decission making behind closed doors.
Technically that means openwrt-hack...@lists.openwrt.org should have
a publicly accessible archive (at least from now on), the private IRC
channels should also allow public read access and decissions made
should be backed by those publicly accessible communications.

> 
> We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get
> trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE patches
> will also be brought in where appropriate.

Great to hear this!


> 
> Regards,
> The OpenWrt team

Just for the record: Who is that exactly?


Cheers


Daniel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

2016-06-07 Thread Zoltan HERPAI 

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 responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list.  Is it
lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and
reasonable dialogue in public, or something else?  I admit that for all
the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency
in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the
remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my
mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency
to the less than generous suspicions, now).
  


Hi Daniel,

May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are yet 
to see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to happen in 
OpenWrt (setting aside the FUD some LEDE members have shown on the 
list). The IRC discussion did not happen due to being unable to work out 
the timezone differences, the conversation on the mailing list did not 
move forward - this is obviously an issue on our side as well.


The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from 
the OpenWrt team is:



Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" 
for new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have 
stayed away from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet 
according to this, to let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their 
changes. (Apologies to all contributors for not pushing their patches so 
far). Luka - as no objections but only praises were received - plans to 
do the proposed github move later this week, which will help with the 
workflow for contributors.


What we would like is to:
- Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their 
targets,
- Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite. 
Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite 
confusing.


We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get 
trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE 
patches will also be brought in where appropriate.


Regards,
The OpenWrt team
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [OpenWrt] Meeting on TR-069 Work - Friday, June 10 - 7 AM PT

2016-06-07 Thread Delbar Jos 
Eric, all,

Eric Schultz  wrote:
> I'm excited to see so many people interested in TR-069 support! As a follow up
> to the previous TR-069 email,  I've set up a meeting on TR-069 support for
> OpenWrt. The meeting is on Friday, June 10 at 7 AM PT.

We have prepared a short presentation giving a high level overview of 
Technicolor's proposed TR-069 contribution. It includes an architecture 
diagram, a description of the main components and a few examples and code 
snippets. We can add more detail in the Friday meeting and we are happy to 
review questions up front.

You can grab the PDF at the link below, which will be invalidated in 5 days. 
Can anyone recommend a more permanent place to store this information?

Url : 
https://rdupload.technicolor.com/dl/9f263b37a666282e2368fcbb15e4714f6a7311cc7467cef0
Login : TCH75e8f8
Password : 232IT_5G

Regards,
Jos
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

2016-06-07 Thread Daniel Dickinson 
iVBORw0KGgoNSUhEUgAAADAwAQMAAABtzGvEBlBMVEX///8AAABVwtN+eklEQVQY04XQzQ2EIBAF4IdMDIc5UAIlUIKlWMr0ZiMm28jOj+6iMXEOfBBmXgJAVLGlBkU3wcZ9I3Q7EdrAveowx6hZ0q6QJDsRnHlJwr+W4CHF7vLqTEenXABeUnSssbP8SdwdjTHEwcFDtQGKFuWjH8Lna8vAmfEF3NMPdAOsBscASUVORK5CYII=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list.  Is it
lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and
reasonable dialogue in public, or something else?  I admit that for all
the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency
in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the
remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my
mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency
to the less than generous suspicions, now).

Regards,

Daniel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH] libnet-1.2.x: enable HAVE_PACKET_SOCKET

2016-06-07 Thread John Crispin 


On 19/05/2016 14:57, Alin Nastac wrote:
> There is already a CONFIGURE_VAR set in here that seem
> to have the same purpose, but it doesn't do the trick
> in my cause (autoconf 2.69).
> ---
>  libs/libnet-1.2.x/Makefile | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/libs/libnet-1.2.x/Makefile b/libs/libnet-1.2.x/Makefile
> index a791163..062c7b6 100644
> --- a/libs/libnet-1.2.x/Makefile
> +++ b/libs/libnet-1.2.x/Makefile
> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ CONFIGURE_ARGS += \
>  CONFIGURE_VARS += \
>   ac_cv_libnet_endianess=$(ENDIANESS) \
>   ac_libnet_have_pf_packet=yes \
> + libnet_cv_have_packet_socket=yes \
>   LL_INT_TYPE=libnet_link_linux
>  
>  define Build/Configure
> 

Hi,

this package is hosted on the github feed. can you pleases send a PRC
there ?

John
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PROPOSAL] move OpenWrt codebase to Git and GitHub

2016-06-07 Thread Jiapeng Li 
I also agree with Luka. Github supplies a serious of features to make
open source development more easier. Pull request, issue tracker etc.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel