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

, lede-adm Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:22:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5756c13c.6040...@uid0.hu> References: <1465294394.3094.78.camel@homehost> <5756c13c.6040...@uid0.hu> Face:

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

On 2016-06-08 11:12, Zoltan HERPAI wrote: >> Which exact goal are you referring to? Imho a 'split' never happened, >> everybody kept contributing to both projects. > Let me argue with that: > > 2016-06-07: 08:59 Changeset [49379] by nbd > treewide: fix replace nbd@… with nbd@… Signed-off-by: … >

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

On 8 June 2016 at 11:12, Zoltan HERPAI wrote: > Daniel Golle wrote: >> Which exact goal are you referring to? Imho a 'split' never happened, >> everybody kept contributing to both projects. > > Let me argue with that: > > 2016-06-07: 08:59 Changeset [49379] by nbd > treewide: fix

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

Hey Daniel, Daniel Golle wrote: 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

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

El 7/6/16 a las 14:42, Zoltan HERPAI escribió: > 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

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] package/devel/gdb-arc: Add target GDB for ARC

ARC port of GDB is not yet upstream so we need to use sources from Synopsys GitHub repo. Given Synopys' commitment to upstream ARC support in GDB in the nearest future it might be simpler to add a separate package for ARC GDB instead of patching generic GDB package. This way once ARC GDB stuff