Wise words from the experienced!
If making a yearly release is unattainable, isn't making point releases
more achievable? Even if it's adding a single commit, point releases
send a signal to the outside world that the project is still active, and
e.g. that security is in focus. Any point
On 2021-10-05 21:17, Rich Brown wrote:
On Oct 5, 2021, at 10:24 AM, Paul D wrote:
Write this up into an FAQ/howto on openwrt.org (this is, after all, the OWRT
way)
Yes, it's always more powerful (and useful) to tell people what TO do, instead
of what NOT to do.
I contribute very
Roughly
Write this up into an FAQ/howto on openwrt.org (this is, after all, the
OWRT way)
Link to it in a
https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-your-repository/defining-the-mergeability-of-pull-requests/troubleshooting-required-status-checks
which looks
Overwrite or override? Seems like override - distinction here is
important...
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Did not understand significance of vendorclass.
Should this give a new option for uci, match_tag?
On 2021-09-23 09:28, Paul Fertser wrote:
A set of tags can be specified for --dhcp-host option to restrict the
assignment to the requests which match all the tags.
Example usage:
config
On 2021-09-17 13:27, Perry wrote:
Hi all,
On 9/17/21 1:30 PM, Rich Brown wrote:
Hi Arınç
On Sep 17, 2021, at 3:17 AM, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
The current naming used on LuCI/UCI is inaccurate and confusing. The
“interfaces” under Network → Interfaces actually represent networks. The actual
Someone more experienced than I am might have a good answer.
How trivial is it to patch openwrt 21 and/or master in one place, such
that my brX/br-lan has the flag SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE if the
underlying hardware/eth driver also has it?
I would like to run ptp4l on my bridge
ch.
Trials and errors worked well in other cases but I guess this time they
may not.
Side note: recovery ath79 image is accepted via tftp.
On Mon, 16 Aug 2021, Paul D wrote:
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:16:54
From: Paul D
To: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
Subject: Re: ath79 porting of NEt
On 2021-08-16 17:24, Enrico Mioso wrote:
Hello all!!
It's me, again trying to port a device to ath79. And guess where I am
stuck ... in the Ethernet part and switch configuration. :)
The device runs ar71xx, I have the io package installed.
I can get replies from the device, but ping
https://www.fragattacks.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20210511180259.159598-1-johan...@sipsolutions.net/
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
101 - 110 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
