Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

mbm schrieb am 05.05.2016 um 21:22: > 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.

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

I confess I am one of those people who has benefited much more than I have contributed to the OpenWRT development group. I run a small company in which I am the chief developer, administrator, customer support dude, marketer, and salesguy. I would LOVE to be able to contribute more to the

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > 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

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 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 broken I mean I think openwrt was dying

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 5 May 2016 at 20:09, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: >> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson >> wrote: >>> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote: On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On Thu, 5 May 2016, Carlos Ferreira wrote: I don't see the end of OpenWRT as a bad thing. If LEDE is basically a fork but without the development bottlenecks that seem to be affecting OpenwRT, then the change can be easily done by the industry segment that uses OpenWRT for their products. In

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

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. Setting up the LEDE project was our way of

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

Hi Daniel, I already merged lynxis series now that I see your comment. If you feel like it, it'd be nice if you point out the remaining places where the name needs to be replaced and submit (a) patch(es). Cheers Daniel On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 02:03:43PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > If

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 wrote: >> On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: >>> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson >>> wrote: On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > 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 >>

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

>Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside existing project? The hasty reasons given and the secret and abrupt severing of ties make me wonder if a "follow the money" approach will yield more plausible

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] [generic] Checksum for all files inside package

This patch introduces possibility to have checksums of all files installed from packages calculated on build and be part of the package metadata. It could be useful to verify everything installed properly and that there are no errors on the storage. Signed-off-by: Michal Hrusecky

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

Hi, On Thu, 5 May 2016, Bruno Randolf wrote: On 05/05/16 02:02, Kathy Giori wrote: On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote: Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot. I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders of the critical

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 05/05/16 02:02, Kathy Giori wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani > wrote: >> Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot. >> I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders >> of the critical resources and then re-organize it from

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

I don't see the end of OpenWRT as a bad thing. If LEDE is basically a fork but without the development bottlenecks that seem to be affecting OpenwRT, then the change can be easily done by the industry segment that uses OpenWRT for their products. In fact, I see it as a good thing because it means

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Bruno Randolf wrote: > > But as someone who is following, using, building upon and sometimes > contributing to OpenWRT since ~10 years I can only say that the only > developers who have been visible, reacting and committing stuff have > left. I

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] ramips: Introduce serial0 aliases for active console in dts

This patch introduces serial0 aliases in the ramips DTS files, which can then be used to denote the active console instead of relying on bootargs. Signed-off-by: Stanislav Galabov — diff --git a/target/linux/ramips/dts/LINKIT7688.dts

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 05/05/16 13:48, Zoltan HERPAI wrote: > I would not call "all active OpenWrt core developers" have left the > boat. Take a look at this [1] page - some of them are active, some of > them are not, but calling an end to the project is an overstatement at > least. Also, refer to the mail Mike sent

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] ar71xx: add Mikrotik's yaffs2 file system support.

From: Sergey Sergeev This patch adds support of Mikrotik yaffs2 filesystem image for kernel file and tools/kernel2minor package. We neede this to boot kernel through RouterBoot on new Mikrotik NOR flash devices. Signed-off-by: Sergey Sergeev ---

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] brcm63xx: add Observa VH4032N support

Add support for the Observa VH4032N router. It's a BCM6368 based board with 128MB RAM, 32MB flash. Equiped with an onboard USB hub. This hub has the RST# pin wired to the GPIO27 pin. For pulling the chip out of reset, we use ephy_reset since there isn't specific code for this function in the USB

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

Hi Mike, thank you for reaching out to us and for your interest in addressing these issues. On 2016-05-04 21:01, mbm wrote: > Dear OpenWrt community, > > It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we read > about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was no

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 wrote: >> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote: >>> Dear OpenWrt community, >>> [snip] > > One simple question: > If LEDE team members are the ones who were suffering from some >

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 05/05/2016 06:38 PM, 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. If i read correctly the feedback from the LEDE guys

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

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 announcement must have felt very much like a stab in the back. "Et tu, brute?" and all that.

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 2016-05-05 20:22, 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. >>

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH netifd] device: Don't process link events anymore in device user specific callback handlers

On 11/02/2015 11:16 AM, Hans Dedecker wrote: > Set link_state for all device types via the device_set_link API as all > devices are registered > in the device tree list making it possible to always get the device via > device_get. > The decice link state parameter will now actually reflect the

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. >>

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

>On 2016-05-05 20:22, 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.

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH v4 1/4] mvebu: add squashfs image type to MMCProfile

Hi Andrej, First let me thank you for taking the time to review my proposals! Am 06.05.2016 um 02:04 schrieb Andrej Vlasic: > Hi Josua, > > On 04.05.2016 21:24, josua.maye...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Josua Mayer >> >> Added gen_mvebu_sdcard_img.sh to create bootable

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH v4 1/4] mvebu: add squashfs image type to MMCProfile

Hi Josua, On 04.05.2016 21:24, josua.maye...@gmail.com wrote: From: Josua Mayer Added gen_mvebu_sdcard_img.sh to create bootable sdcard images. It takes the bootloader and partition images to create a bootable sdcard image. Partition Layout: p1: fat32: for kernel,

[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 Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM Daniel Dickinson < open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote: > 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

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 >> > welcome. >> >> Let's just

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

Below is the message referenced in the previous email, so that it makes more sense, but please remember: > Add to this that with years of toxic arguments (as acknowledged by both > sides) behind this, there's likely to be too much acrimony in > explanations given. > > Much as not knowing is

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

I like to take decisions based more on "Realpolitik" than on ideology/feelings. I have no side and no feelings for any of people involved. I just want to have a good router distribution. What is a OSS project? It is the sum of work of people. So, the future of a project lies on how much people

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

I also think that it is utterly unreasonable to think that the differences are going to be resolved in the next few days/weeks. It took years to get to this point, and there are some very significant differences of opinion. There is going to need to be time for one side or the other to be

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

You may be right that OpenWRT is doomed, but we have seen time and time again that OpenSource software is not a zero-sum game. Yes, if OpenWRT does nothing, it will struggle, but that's unlikely to be the case. For that matter, even with no new manpower, OpenWRT could just copy everything

[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] [OpenWrt] #20982: jffs2-error / nanostation M5 xw / r47658

On 05/05/16 19:16, OpenWrt wrote: #20982: jffs2-error / nanostation M5 xw / r47658 + Reporter: bittorf@… | Owner: developers Type: defect | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: packages |

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 5 May 2016 at 17:43, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: >> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson >> wrote: >>> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote: Dear OpenWrt community, > [snip] >> >>

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

On 16-05-05 11:11 AM, John Clark wrote: >>>the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email > addresses somewhat undermines this > > Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org email @openwrt.org actually > addresses were deleted in retaliation for forking

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

>>the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email addresses somewhat undermines this Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org email addresses were deleted in retaliation for forking OpenWrt? Seriously? How did you not think that wasn't going to go well