The master settings seem to be compatibility settings for Windows
98 and below. guest ok conflicts with the current UCI setup where
it gets applied to directories as well. Unfortunately, the global
setting takes precedence and nullifies the local ones. encrypt
passwords defaults to yes. No reason
current LuCI defaults set the former for each individual share.
Patch is pending for the latter.
Signed-off by: Rosen Penev
---
package/network/services/samba36/files/smb.conf.template | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
current LuCI defaults set the former for each individual share.
The latter is an inverted synonym for read only, which is
configurable through LuCI.
Signed-off by: Rosen Penev
---
package/network/services/samba36/files/smb.conf.template | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
Removes some undefined behavior.
Signed-off by: Rosen Penev
---
allocate.h| 10 +-
contents.c| 8
contents.h| 2 +-
extent.h | 2 +-
indirect.h| 2 +-
make_ext4fs.c | 12 ++--
6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
Geert,
Am 21.05.2017 um 10:37 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Ralph Sennhauser
> wrote:
>> There is also the size consideration. Unless a seeded ubifs can get
>> close to squashfs in terms of compression there would still be a
>>
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Ralph Sennhauser
wrote:
> There is also the size consideration. Unless a seeded ubifs can get
> close to squashfs in terms of compression there would still be a
> use-case for squashfs with an ubifs overlay. My current root as ubifs
>
Hi Richard
On Sun, 21 May 2017 10:40:05 +0200
Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Geert,
>
> Am 21.05.2017 um 10:37 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Ralph Sennhauser
> > wrote:
> >> There is also the size consideration.
> Hi, thanks for pointing that out.
> > Can we get cpufreq, ondemand scaler, and default=ondemand for this
> > platform / two targets? If needed I can submit a patch / signoff, or
> > if there is a reason this should not be done I'd love to start a
> > discussion about it.
> Please test a build
Hi,
I noticed commit 0dcc36fc7ddec ("kernel: add hwmon for W83627EHF and
family") in the LEDE tree that doesn't look OK to me.
1) Package for hwmon-w83627ehf
Do we need it to be a package? Or could it be built-in into the kernel?
Do we need it to be a global package? Usually hwmon drivers are
Hi Rafal,
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 05:02:44PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed commit 0dcc36fc7ddec ("kernel: add hwmon for W83627EHF and
> family") in the LEDE tree that doesn't look OK to me.
>
> 1) Package for hwmon-w83627ehf
> Do we need it to be a package? Or could it be
Ralph,
Am 21.05.2017 um 14:23 schrieb Ralph Sennhauser:
> If the seeded ubifs could be generalized to snapshot support ala btrfs
> that would change things a lot as it would enable uses far beyond just
> factory reset. No idea how feasible that is but might be worth
> considering instead.
I
> On May 21, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Daniel Golle wrote:
>
> Hi Rafal,
>
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 05:02:44PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed commit 0dcc36fc7ddec ("kernel: add hwmon for W83627EHF and
>> family") in the LEDE tree that doesn't look OK to
Hello,
The following patch (submitted by you) has been updated in patchwork:
* lede: [LEDE-DEV,1/2] firmware: add firmware for rtl8821ae support
- http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/764814/
- for: LEDE development
was: New
now: Accepted
This email is a notification only - you
13 matches
Mail list logo