Leonid Aronov Publishing Services. We can help you in many things:
The sender domain has a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy which disallows sending mailing list messages using the original "From" header. To mitigate this problem, the original message has been wrapped automatically by the mailing list software.--- Begin Message --- Dear Colleagues, This is the site of Leonid Aronov Publishing Services. We are a small office in Belgium. Phone: +32 2 598 42 19, https://leonidpublisher.blogspot.com/ We can help you in many things: a) We can help you to find a good Scopus, Web of Science, EI Compendex Indexed Journal to publish your papers with very low fees. We collect many papers, we organize a pre-screen review and we are sending them massively to many Open Access Publishers. So, we obtain much lower fees! Open Access Publishers usual give to our Office a 30% - 80& discount, when we provide them many good papers together. Do not lose the opportunity send us your paper now (or at least a Draft of 3 pages). In December 8, 2020, we promoted to a Journal indexed in ISI Web of Science and Scopus 30 good papers with good English and good format. Our Authors obtained 40% discount! b) We have collaboration with big publishers (Springer, Elsevier, ACM, Emerald, AIP, IEEE, WorldScientific, SAGE etc) and small publishers. c) We can find you also a good University in North America or West Europe to elaborate M.Sc. or Ph.D. Dissertation d) We can also help you in the Format of your paper or to improve the language in your articles. e) We can find the appropriate Journals for Authors from some countries (like India, Italy, China) that have Specific Lists for Journals that are recognized by their Countries or their Universities. Note that you pay only if you receive the official letter of acceptance from these publishers from their professional emails like *@springer.com, *@ieee.org etc Do not hesitate to ask our advice! Please, contact us for more details! Dr. Leonid Aronov LEONID PUBLISHER Carrefour de l'Europe 3, 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium Phone: +32 2 598 42 19 dr.leonid.aro...@gmail.com https://leonidpublisher.blogspot.com/ --- End Message --- ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: compiling only packages that have patented functionality
Mar 17, 2021 12:37:26 AM Alberto Bursi : I'm investigating about making an unofficial third party repository with OpenWrt (non-kmod) packages where patented functionality is enabled. For example ffmpeg from packages is missing some functionality in its "non-patented" form and most end users won't be able to just recompile from sources with that option enabled. Is there a non-hacky way to build only packages that are affected by the "patented functionality" switch in the build system? At the moment the only thing I can think about is a script that parses the package makefiles and compiles a list, and then builds only those packages with the SDK or buildroot. The packages.git CI uses a little script to determine what packages changes. I think that step could be trivially modified to find patent packages. Once you have the names, you could pass them to a GitHub action to automatically compile and upload/store. I briefly describe a setup here: https://forum.openwrt.org/t/github-action-for-package-building-and-testing/91324 Paul ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel -- ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [PATCH opkg] libopkg: pkg_hash: prefer original packages to satisfy dependencies
On 3/13/21 3:52 AM, Daniel Golle wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 02:00:40AM +0100, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
When one package "provides" another non-virtual package, prefer to use
the original package instead of the providing package.
Example:
Consider packages "foo" and "bar", where "foo" provides "bar".
The current code will sort all candidates by name and use the last entry
by default, so "foo" would be used to satisfy a dependency on "bar".
Change the logic to prefer the actual package "bar" in this case.
Reviewed-by: Daniel Golle
Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer
---
libopkg/pkg_hash.c | 14 --
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libopkg/pkg_hash.c b/libopkg/pkg_hash.c
index dbed3febfbbe..a07a25ec1e0b 100644
--- a/libopkg/pkg_hash.c
+++ b/libopkg/pkg_hash.c
@@ -284,6 +284,7 @@ pkg_t
*pkg_hash_fetch_best_installation_candidate(abstract_pkg_t * apkg,
int nmatching = 0;
int wrong_arch_found = 0;
int arch_priority;
+ int good_pkg_score = 0;
pkg_vec_t *matching_pkgs;
abstract_pkg_vec_t *matching_apkgs;
abstract_pkg_vec_t *provided_apkg_vec;
@@ -409,9 +410,18 @@ pkg_t
*pkg_hash_fetch_best_installation_candidate(abstract_pkg_t * apkg,
for (i = 0; i < matching_pkgs->len; i++) {
pkg_t *matching = matching_pkgs->pkgs[i];
if (constraint_fcn(matching, cdata)) {
- opkg_msg(DEBUG, "Candidate: %s %s.\n",
-matching->name, pkg_get_string(matching,
PKG_VERSION));
+ int score = 1;
+ if (strcmp(matching->name, apkg->name) == 0)
+ score++;
++score;
As you are not using the return value, no need for post-increment.
The compiler should be able to recognize and optmize that away by now
though, so probably it doesn't matter.
The difference is only meaningful in C++, where preincrement and
postincrement may use different operator overloads. In C, I prefer the
postincrement when I don't need the result, simply for aesthetic reasons ;)
+
+ opkg_msg(DEBUG, "Candidate: %s %s (score %d).\n",
+matching->name, pkg_get_string(matching,
PKG_VERSION),
+score);
+ if (score < good_pkg_score)
+ continue;
+
good_pkg_by_name = matching;
+ good_pkg_score = score;
/* It has been provided by hand, so it is what user
want */
if (matching->provided_by_hand == 1)
break;
--
2.30.2
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
compiling only packages that have patented functionality
I'm investigating about making an unofficial third party repository with OpenWrt (non-kmod) packages where patented functionality is enabled. For example ffmpeg from packages is missing some functionality in its "non-patented" form and most end users won't be able to just recompile from sources with that option enabled. Is there a non-hacky way to build only packages that are affected by the "patented functionality" switch in the build system? At the moment the only thing I can think about is a script that parses the package makefiles and compiles a list, and then builds only those packages with the SDK or buildroot. -Alberto ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: Buildbot infrastructure upgrade
On 13/03/2021 07:16, Andre Heider wrote: On 13/03/2021 07:03, Petr Štetiar wrote: Petr Štetiar [2021-03-12 16:38:46]: Hi, I would like to let you know, that we've prepared upgrade of the Buildbot based infrastructure and there is a plan to make those changes alive. we've just finished the migration. Oh nice, didn't see that coming so soon! Does that mean it's possible to reconsider this patch now? http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openwrt/patch/20210216072108.26107-1-a.hei...@gmail.com/ I see it's merged by now, thanks! ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
