Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] package/config/netifd: Replace ifconfig/route with ip command

...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote: From: Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> v3: Drop comment thanking user who gave mask2cidr at their request : Fix echo had correct CIDR but actual command did not : Fix style issue : Use full -family in ip command line instead of -f v2: Also

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] DD: CONFIG_BUSYBOX_DEFAULT_WGET is not set

Sorry, I've been out of the country and not had a chance to get to this. I had planned to do that for the packages you previously requested changes for that I had proposed a unified symlink handling solution to deal with what is rather a mess at the moment, but have been obviously rather busy

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] A quick note

On 23/02/16 02:31 AM, John Crispin wrote: On 23/02/2016 08:23, Daniel Dickinson wrote: I am reprioritizing my project queue and as my attempts at openwrt contributions get either curt/rude (sorry John, I know you complain about my wordiness, but for the majority of world who aren't robots

[OpenWrt-Devel] A quick note

I am reprioritizing my project queue and as my attempts at openwrt contributions get either curt/rude (sorry John, I know you complain about my wordiness, but for the majority of world who aren't robots *excessive* brevity comes across as rude and maybe even hostile, which is why openwrt has

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 3/3] package/network/config/qos-scripts: Drop ifconfig and use ip command instead

On 21/01/16 05:28 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: On 2016-01-20 20:22, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote: From: Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> This is the final package in base that depends on ifconfig, so remove the the dependency on ifconfig and replace ifconfig command w

[OpenWrt-Devel] netifd question

Hi Felix (or anyone else who knows netifd) For a netifd protocol is there way to tell netifd to *not* automatically try to restart the connection? I'm asking for the case of VPN where if the password it wrong (e.g. due to an stoken that expires before the connection completes), too many

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 3/3] package/network/config/qos-scripts: Drop ifconfig and use ip command instead

Hi Felix, On 21/01/16 05:28 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: done append ${prefix}q "$(tcrules)" "$N" - export dev_${dir}="ifconfig $dev up txqueuelen 5 >&- 2>&- + export dev_${dir}="ip link set $dev up txqueuelen 5 >&- 2>&- This doesn't

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] package/config/netifd: Replace ifconfig/route with ip command

On 20/01/16 04:24 AM, Bastian Bittorf wrote: * Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> [20.01.2016 10:18]: + local prefix="$( + eval "$(ipcalc.sh 0.0.0.0 ${subnet:-255.255.255.0})" + echo -n $PREFIX dont use '-n' Why not?

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] package/config/netifd: Replace ifconfig/route with ip command

On 20/01/16 02:10 AM, Bastian Bittorf wrote: * open...@daniel.thecshore.com [20.01.2016 07:21]: @@ -5,30 +5,34 @@ set_classless_routes() { local max=128 local type thanks for that, i have it also on my todo-list. please remove also the 'local

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] package/config/netifd: Replace ifconfig/route with ip command

On 20/01/16 04:24 AM, Bastian Bittorf wrote: please dont double-fallback. It's ok to have it once default to '255.255.255.0', so just use $prefix The second fallback is in case the interpolation fails. ok, i will not discuss this and accept. On second thought I don't like relying on

[OpenWrt-Devel] vnstatd and collectd inconsistency with vlan interfaces

Hi all, I discovered through that despite over 23 GB of upload in past 24 hours that neither vnstat nor collectd are reporting even close to that amount traffic on the lan side. I didn't have wan reporting statistics on vnstat, so that side of things is missing, but the lan traffic for the

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] vnstatd and collectd inconsistency with vlan interfaces

was expecting on differentiated vlans. Regards, Daniel On 14/02/16 01:44 AM, Daniel Dickinson wrote: Hi all, I discovered through that despite over 23 GB of upload in past 24 hours that neither vnstat nor collectd are reporting even close to that amount traffic on the lan side. I didn't have wan

[OpenWrt-Devel] Dropping drop ifconfig/route patches

Hi, As I still don't have working patchwork and the patchwork admin hasn't gotten back to me on the issue, could you drop the patches from patchwork for removing using of ifconfig/route in favour of ip. I looked at the actual size of ifconfig/route (<5k) and concluded that for the amount of

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [EXPERIMENTAL] [PATCH] base-files busybox: Detect LXC guest and act appropriately

specific hooks sprayed over a pile a scripts is the wrong approach, so NAK on this one. John On 16/02/2016 08:03, open...@daniel.thecshore.com wrote: From: Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> I have a patch that it will be some time before I personally will have som

[OpenWrt-Devel] The old days are gone; OpenWrt is a product now

Hi all, I realized what part of my frustration (aside from medically causes reasons for oversensitivity) is that what I wanted from OpenWrt is not what OpenWrt is anymore. I was looking for the old days of GNU/Linux when most everyone was playing and sharing the results of playing to

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] The old days are gone; OpenWrt is a product now

rting to come back from hiatus and have things be so different from what I recall. Regards, Daniel On Mar 29, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: Hi all, I realized what part of my frustration (aside from medically causes reasons for over

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] opkg upgrade all

On 16-03-30 02:48 AM, Michal Hrusecky wrote: Yep, I understand all those. My question was whether upgrade all is disabled just because of this ideological stuff and in hope that users wouldn't find and try one of the posts I linked or whether there is anything really broken. It's *not*

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH/RFC] dnsmasq: run as dedicated UID/GID

> > please us an id between 0-999. ideally check what debian uses. > For most system services, with a very small number exceptions, debian auto-assigns id < 500(?), and which service gets id depends on order of package installation (which can be hassle with when trying to do network

[OpenWrt-Devel] Why does multiple instance dnsmasq work with jails but not without?

Hi all, I had a patch that I submitted to the openwrt list sometime back that launched multiple instances of dnsmasq, so long as the instances were either tied to specific, non-overlapping, interfaces, or used different dns port, but at least in the case of different interfaces it only worked (to

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 18:18 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 23:57 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote: > [snip] > > Hi, > > >> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non > > >> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 23:57 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote: [snip] > Hi, > >> I would like to see a reunion of LEDE and OpenWrt, so do any of the non > >> LEDE but OpenWrt core devs have any problems with the LEDE rules and so on? > >> > > This is my personal opinion and this was not somehow

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 21:19 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > > > Let's just save such non-sense sense of culture and expectation > > > discussion in another place. > > Perhaps the issue is the notion of a monolithic culture - that is *not* > what meant. There a

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 08:45 +0800, Yousong Zhou wrote: > > > > To a certain extent you yourself acknowledge individual opinion (with > > you over a beer comment), but you seem to think that such a view of > > individual opinions are not as valid in the public domain, whereas our > > expectation

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 20:57 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 08:45 +0800, Yousong Zhou wrote: > > > > > > To a certain extent you yourself acknowledge individual opinion (with > > > you over a beer comment), but you seem to think that s

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Failed to execute /usr/libexec/login.sh

On 16-05-11 06:08 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Looks like one recent commit: [snip] > > breaks something for my boards (in particular arc770-based boards). > I'm unable to activate console now. That's what I'm getting > every time I press ENTER: >

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Failed to execute /usr/libexec/login.sh

On 16-05-11 06:08 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > > breaks something for my boards (in particular arc770-based boards). > I'm unable to activate console now. That's what I'm getting > every time I press ENTER: > ->8- > Failed to

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: > On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: >> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote: >>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: >>> [snip] [snip] >> When I say

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-05 01:49 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: > On 5 May 2016 at 20:09, Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: >> On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: >>> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> >>> w

[OpenWrt-Devel] Guest who is using openwrt (was Fwd: Build failed in Jenkins: PandoraBoxFireware » PandoraBox_Build_Beta » MT7628,Linux #14)

Hi List, For your amusement. Anyone want to PandoraBox is using OpenWrt ;-) (That is I have no affilation with PandoraBox; their CI screwed up). Regards, Daniel Forwarded Message Subject: Build failed in Jenkins: PandoraBoxFireware » PandoraBox_Build_Beta » MT7628,Linux

[OpenWrt-Devel] Apology (was Re: Introducing the LEDE project)

Hi Imre, I'm doing this a lot lately. I'm sorry for publicly making guesses, stating impressions that were not fair to you. I do not know what the truth is and trying divine the information with the little information I have doesn't work, and is not fair. Sorry. Regards, Daniel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-06 07:53 AM, Imre Kaloz wrote: > On Thu, 05 May 2016 18:24:09 +0200, Daniel Dickinson > <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: > >> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: >> [snip] >>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-04 07:21 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > On 16-05-04 07:01 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote: >> On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote: >>> >>> Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: > It also seems to me (as an outsider) that those who d

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-04 07:59 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote: > Just curious to know by the names that signed the announcement of the > new project being know OpenWrt Developers why weren't there enough votes > inside OpenWrt to do this reboot and reorganize it completely under the > LEDE Project ideas ? I

[OpenWrt-Devel] Getting in touch with Felix

Hi, How does one get in touch with Felix these days? n...@openwrt.org bounces for me. Regards, Daniel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-04 07:32 PM, Kathy Giori wrote: > > Daniel I fully concur that industry "give back" is severely lacking. > It seems to me that the bigger the company, the less likely they are > to give back. One of the goals of the prpl Foundation was to help big > industry members to better "see" that

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote: > > Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: >> >> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of >> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as >> being as concrete exa

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote: > Dear OpenWrt community, > > spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the > project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both > vague and misleading and the LEDE project failed to identify its true > nature. The LEDE

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: > On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: >> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote: >>> Dear OpenWrt community, >>> [snip] > > One simple question: > If LEDE team members are t

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-04 07:01 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote: >> >> Daniel Dickinson <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: >>> >>> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of >>> contributions that an

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-05 11:38 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > There is plenty of blame to go around, I think. Seems like the Lede > guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt > leadership privately that they were planning this venture. The surprise The problem is that LEDE is pretty much

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

Might I submit that my impression is that Kaloz (at least) holds infrastructure hostage to maintain control, and that the fundamental problem here is that OpenWrt is *not* democratic and ignores what people who were ones visibly working on openwrt want and overrides their wishes because he/they

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-05 03:22 PM, mbm wrote: > On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often >> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned >> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues. >>

[OpenWrt-Devel] Calmer heads than mine...

Hi all, Sorry for sounding off so much yet again. I've been trying to interpret events with a severe lack of information and have unfavourable guesses and impressions that may or may not be accurate. I do know that some of the developers have a history of not getting along, and that has hurt

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: [snip] > > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but > > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not > > welcome. > > Let's just say that there are strong personalities who haven't

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > [snip] >> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but >> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not >> &

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Scrap that, David makes sense (was Re: A request for more clarity on the fork)

d guessing my guesses, and really it shouldn't be a guessing game, particularly since both sides claim to be interested in transparency and the best interests of the community. C'mon, can we have more than political statements, please? On 16-05-05 11:42 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > I think David L

[OpenWrt-Devel] Scrap that, David makes sense (was Re: A request for more clarity on the fork)

I think David Lang makes a lot of sense; it took years to reach this point, better to carry on independently, but working together as much as can be managed, and let time both settle the dust and demonstrate which ideas really pan out. Add to this that with years of toxic arguments (as

[OpenWrt-Devel] A request for more clarity on the fork

Hi all, I know other community members of complained about the lack of information about the reasons for the fork (they and I don't think LEDE's official announcement really provides enough information to really understand the situation) and I especially do badly in a vacuum - I tend to strain to

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

t; --John > > > On 5/5/16 11:04 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: >> On 5 May 2016 at 17:43, Daniel Dickinson >> <open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: >>> On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: >>>> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson >>&g

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-04 12:25 PM, Kathy Giori wrote: > Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by > industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for > OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for > this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion

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

On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 16:46 +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: > Hi Luka, > > this is fantastic news! > > I'd be very interested in your future progress on the CI front. > Let's just not make the mistake other projects make and turn CI into a an excuse to not have proper releases and a

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt / LEDE

On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 00:23 +0300, Roman Yeryomin wrote: [snip] > > I do not plan to contribute much to OpenWrt any more and I do not know > > if I can commit anything any more, at least it looks like I was kicked > > from the openwrt-hackers mailing list without informing me. > > I believe

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

On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 16:20 -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 16:46 +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: > > Hi Luka, > > > > this is fantastic news! > > > > I'd be very interested in your future progress on the CI front. > > > Let'

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [openwrt/packages] mail/postfix: Use more FHS compliant /srv for data (#3059)

On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 11:39 -0700, Michael Heimpold wrote: > Hi, > could you please elaborate, why do you think that /srv is a more FHS- > compliant choice? I agree, that /usr is really the wrong place to put > data there, but according to my understanding of the FHS, /srv is not > even better,

[OpenWrt-Devel] Actual community change and additional developers compared to OpenWrt

Hi, Several months after the split it looks like things have pretty much ended up where they were before the split. It's starting to look like the talk of encouraging new blood, and being more open and transparent was more talk than real intention. As much as I've gotten busy with personal

[OpenWrt-Devel] Apologies; reimplementing delay

Hi all, Sorry for my last couple of messages, I'm re-implementing my delay mechanism so that I don't mess things up again; I do want to help both OpenWrt and LEDE, not create another bad situation; maybe in a week or few the things I'm dealing with will be sorted enough to remove that. At this

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [LEDE-DEV] Talks between OpenWrt and LEDE

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:06:22 -0500 "Hauke Mehrtens" wrote: > We had multiple meetings to find a solution to solve the problems > between the OpenWrt and the LEDE project and to discuss a possible > merge. Everyone with commit access to LEDE and all OpenWrt core > developers

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Moving the mailing lists

On 2018-05-27 06:11 AM, Alberto Bursi wrote: On 27/05/2018 03:56, Daniel F. Dickinson wrote: On 2018-05-26 05:17 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: "Daniel F. Dickinson" writes: 1) How many people have their own mail server and can do *server-side* mail filtering You do not

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] openwrt/packages: [RFC] Proposed flattening of menuconfig menus

On 2018-08-13 01:51 AM, Eric Luehrsen wrote: > On 08/13/2018 01:29 AM, Daniel F. Dickinson wrote: >> Posting on list as I think the discussion should include as folks as >> possible in the discussion. >> >> https://github.com/openwrt/packages/issues/6745 >> >>> Especially when getting started with

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] ca-certificates: ca-bundle: add symlink for openssl default setting

On 2018-07-05 06:51 AM, Yousong Zhou wrote: OpenSSL defaults X509_CERT_FILE to /etc/ssl/cert.pem. This change is needed for wget-ssl and possibly others to work seamlessly with fresh ca-bundle installation Out of curiosity will this eliminate the need for installing both ca-bundle and

[OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC] [PATCH] iw: Fix rootfs opkg with PER_DEVICE_ROOTFS and iw

From: "Daniel F. Dickinson" With PER_DEVICE_ROOTFS on ath79 and brcm2708 package/install step fails because it cannot satisfy the dependency on iw. The quick solution (this patch) is to add DEFAULT:=y if cfg80211 to Package/iw. A better solution would be to defer installation to imagebuilder,

<    1   2   3   4