[00:27] <CIA-17> nbd * r4611 /branches/whiterussian/openwrt/package/iptables/ (Makefile files/firewall.init): add extra chain for non-wan traffic
[07:32] <CIA-17> groz * r4612 /branches/buildroot-ng/openwrt/target/linux/generic-2.6/files/init: Add devpts mounts
[17:54] <[g2]> Kaloz around ?
[17:59] <Kaloz> [g2]: yep
[18:00] <[g2]> Kaloz what's the status with the ixp4xx ?
[18:00] <Kaloz> [g2]: works, testing the free ethernet driver
[18:00] <[g2]> I built the 2.1 sw with 4.1.1 the other day in LE and it's wasn't happy on the load
[18:00] <Kaloz> i ditched the osal
[18:00] <Kaloz> :P
[18:00] <[g2]> the driver from the DE guy on LAK ?
[18:01] <Kaloz> yep
[18:01] <[g2]> cool
[18:01] <Kaloz> it's not finished yet to say at least
[18:01] <Kaloz> but i've sent him bugreports, so he will get back to me
[18:01] <[g2]> nod, it'll probably take a little while
[18:01] <Kaloz> i don't think so.. imho it will be okay in a month or earlier
[18:01] <[g2]> several of the nslu2 guys are interested in that driver
[18:02] <Kaloz> i guess so
[18:05] <[g2]> are you running BE ?
[18:05] <Kaloz> sure
[18:06] <Kaloz> LE is for IOP
[18:06] <Kaloz> :)
[18:07] <[g2]> The IXPs can run either endian
[18:08] <Kaloz> i know, but it was designed with BE in mind
[18:08] <[g2]> actually it runs LE just fine
[18:09] <[g2]> I built the SVN ixp sw a couple weeks ago, but I didn't have a BE box around to run it on :(
[18:10] <Kaloz> well, BE is better for routeing/firewalling/etc, as the network packets are big endian.. the iops are running LE because they are designed for storage and most of the data you use is in LE
[18:11] <[g2]> I used to thing that BE was better due to network byte ordering, but in reality I think it's a wash as the NPE have plenty horse power and a fast bus
[18:11] <Bartman007> hmmmm, I just found a package makefile that tried to remove stuff from /usr/bin ....
[18:11] <Bartman007> hooray for permissions!
[18:12] <Bartman007> I'll submit a bug report in a second
[18:12] <[g2]> hooray for building as a user :)
[18:13] <Bartman007> g2, yeah :-P but I'll have to check to see if there are any additional files in there now...
[18:13] <Bartman007> oh wait, nm... permissions to the rescue again....
[18:21] <nbd> .
[18:21] <nbd> i think we should add a check that prevents users from building openwrt as root
[18:24] <Bartman007> nbd: nah, just add a line that runs rm -rf /*/* if they do
[18:26] <Bartman007> nbd: when I rerun make with V=99 once it errors out, do you want the entire output for the problem package, or just the error it self (until now I've figured the more info the better)
[18:30] <Bartman007> hmmm, I almost think there is something wrong with buildroot-ng on my machine, it looks like variables aren't being exported...
[18:36] <nbd> Bartman007: show me the error and everything related to it
[18:37] <Bartman007> nbd, k, I won't submit the bug report just yet then
[18:39] <Bartman007> http://www.padded-cell.net/openwrt/lrzsz_error
[18:47] <nbd> bug found
[18:47] <nbd> testing patch...
[18:48] <nbd> done
[18:48] <CIA-17> nbd * r4613 /packages/utils/lrzsz/patches/100-install_delete_fix.patch: fix lrzsz install error
[18:49] <Bartman007> oh, cool.
[18:51] <nbd> let me know if it works for you
[18:51] <db90h> what service
[18:51] <Bartman007> nbd: will do, I'm updating right now
[18:55] <Bartman007> errored out again...
[18:56] <Bartman007> output in same url as before.
[18:57] <Bartman007> now I'm getting an undefined macro
[19:04] <nbd> weird
[19:05] <Bartman007> yeah...
[19:09] <nbd> fscking automake
[19:10] <nbd> testing a different fix
[19:11] <nbd> works for me
[19:11] <CIA-17> nbd * r4614 /packages/utils/lrzsz/patches/100-install_delete_fix.patch: patch Makefile.in instead of Makefile.am
[19:11] <nbd> try again
[19:18] <Bartman007> nbd: looks like success, on to the next package that died (kmod-ipv6) :-)
[19:19] <nbd> show me
[19:20] <Bartman007> yeah, one sec, looks like this may be a mistake on my end...
[19:21] <Bartman007> make -C kmod-ipv6 compile
[19:21] <Bartman007> make: *** kmod-ipv6: No such file or directory. Stop.
[19:21] <Bartman007> make: Entering an unknown directorymake: Leaving an unknown directorymake[3]: *** [kmod-ipv6-compile] Error 2
[19:21] <nbd> nah, looks like some package references kmod-ipv6 which hasn't been ported to the new system yet
[19:22] <Bartman007> yeah, I realized that after a sec...
[19:23] <nbd> working on it
[19:24] <Bartman007> I'm disabling it until fixed and finding the next package.
[19:27] <CIA-17> nbd * r4615 /branches/buildroot-ng/openwrt/ (4 files in 3 dirs): port kmod-ipv6 to the new system
[19:34] <Bartman007> hehe, now it's kmod-tun-compile
[19:36] <Bartman007> err, kmod-tun
[19:54] <Bartman007> as a side note, branches/buildroot-ng/package/miredo/Makefile needs to be updated, it still references both kmod-ipv6 and kmod-tun in it's DEPENDS line
[19:54] <nbd> no
[19:54] <nbd> the references are ok
[19:55] <nbd> the packages that are referenced need to be updated
[19:55] <nbd> at least the tun one
[19:55] <nbd> ipv6 is done
[19:55] <Bartman007> ok
[20:20] <db90h> writing webif pages makes me suicidal
[20:20] <db90h> so, nbd, if i disappear, my death is on your hands!
[20:21] Action: Bartman007 runs kill -9 db90h
[21:25] <nbd> lol... x-wrt
[21:27] <Kaloz> db90h: fyi, we've already discussed both the whiterussian updates and the web-based firmware customization tool here way before
[21:27] <Kaloz> :p
[21:28] Action: [mbm] still confused about the sudden fork
[21:28] <[mbm]> but the "openwrt sucks and isn't maintained! i"m forking" seems to be the latest trend
[21:28] <db90h> what was the result of it?
[21:28] <db90h> all i've said is openwrt is awesome..
[21:29] <db90h> well, all i've said lately ;p
[21:29] <Kaloz> :p
[21:29] <[mbm]> the point is that whiterussian isn't dead, and you didn't even ask about that
[21:29] <[mbm]> you just took it upon yourself to say it's dead and put yourself in a position of leading a new project
[21:29] <db90h> i hear conflicting things every day it seems
[21:30] <[mbm]> the ironic thing is that you say this is for the cunnunuty but you didn't even attempt to ask what we're already doing
[21:30] <[mbm]> or work with us
[21:30] <db90h> i have been talking about this for days
[21:30] <db90h> ask groz
[21:30] <db90h> or check logs
[21:30] <[mbm]> up until a few minutes ago I had not heard "db90h is planning t fork openwrt into his oen firmware"
[21:30] <db90h> i don't mean for it to be offensive.. shit, if you are doing the same thing, then that's great
[21:31] <db90h> planned that its just a custom distribution of openwrt, openwrt plastered everywhere..not really a whole fork
[21:31] <db90h> or maybe it is technically a fork, i don't know
[21:32] <Kaloz> db90h: for real it should be an own package imho
[21:32] <db90h> yea, and i intend to do that
[21:32] <Kaloz> db90h: probably a metapackage that depends on some packages as well as your own stuff
[21:32] <db90h> yea
[21:32] <db90h> i thought openwrt was for building end user firmwares from...
[21:33] <db90h> why is it offensive when someone endeavors to do this?
[21:33] <Kaloz> db90h: but then what's the point to have a separate firmware? it's more sane to step up and offer those packages as part of openwrt
[21:33] <Kaloz> probably offering your help in maintaining them - we are in need of package maintainers anyways
[21:33] <[mbm]> point of openwrt was to create a modular firmware with the package system
[21:33] <[mbm]> not to start new forks at a whim
[21:34] <db90h> the reason to 'fork' was to have the freedom to be able to be free to make whatever code changes i feel like to facilitate my goals
[21:34] <db90h> and last i heard white russian wasn't going to have any new changes, just bug fixes.. i'll have to check logs for who i heard it from, one of the developers
[21:35] <Kaloz> db90h: http://openwrt.org .... le tme quote
[21:35] <Kaloz> "The latest release is (still) RC5; We're overdue for a new version very soon, but I probably should point out some major changes to the roadmap that are slowing things down:
[21:35] <Kaloz> - The WhiteRussian branch is getting stale
[21:35] <Kaloz> - The next WhiteRussian release will be RC6, and it will kick off 0.9 (not 1.0)
[21:35] <Kaloz> - The development branch, Kamikaze is getting a major overhaul called builroot-ng
[21:35] <Kaloz> - Parts of Kamikaze (including buildroot-ng) will then be merged into WhiteRussian for 1.0"
[21:36] <db90h> until Kamikaze is merged into White Russian (past RC6, I asked about RC6).. what will be the changes?
[21:37] <Kaloz> i ask it a different way. do you think you will reach your goals before we release rc6 and merge back the changes for 1.0?
[21:37] <db90h> look, you guys can do whatever you want.. its your attitudes that makes such actions necessary.. if i went through proper channels to make openwrt into what i wanted it to be, you guys would just strongly disagree with what i personally desired from it, and then i'd be stuck.. so here i am
[21:37] <db90h> i know i will reach most of my goals long before
[21:37] <db90h> if not all my goals
[21:37] <db90h> in case you hadn't noticed, buildroot-ng is amitious
[21:37] <db90h> i don't see it getting done anytime soon
[21:38] <db90h> you know though, you guys constantly put down everything that isn't of and for you, and in line with whatever you think is right.. i'm doing what i feel like doing and using openwrt as a base firmware, clearly labelling it as such everywhere.. so what is the damn problem?
[21:38] <db90h> i can't do what I want to with openwrt?
[21:38] <db90h> i didn't know that was part of the license.. i'll have to re-read it
[21:38] <[mbm]> I'm confused; this is somehow a result of our attitudes? as I said before you didn't even ask what our plans were, read what platns were posted or ask if you could have svn access to whiterussian
[21:39] <Kaloz> db90h: you got it totally wrong.. i say that all your goals could be reached with packages
[21:39] <Kaloz> db90h: and that way you would contribute to openwrt while staying with our community
[21:39] <db90h> most of them cna, yea.. and if it turns out i don't want to do any code changes to the bae firmware, then i'll jsut distribute packages.. where appropriate there will be packages available
[21:40] <db90h> Kaloz: it's hard for me to participate when you have people like mbm berating everyone who has any difference in opinion...
[21:40] <db90h> i'll do what i want, you guys do whatever you want
[21:40] <db90h> now leave me alone and quit being offended because someone uses openwrt
[21:41] <Kaloz> db90h: did i sound like being offended or did i give you names?
[21:41] <db90h> no, not you
[21:41] <db90h> mbm
[21:41] <db90h> i'm sorry for generalizing and attacking everyone
[21:41] <db90h> that was wrong.. mbm just makes me so damn mad
[21:42] <[mbm]> what's offensive is not that someone wants to use openwrt, it's the fact they think they need to take it to do so
[21:42] <Kaloz> well, i guess you can udnerstand his point of view as well.. the whole openwrt project started as a project to make the development centralized,
[21:42] <Kaloz> instead of 30 individuals with 30 added stuff and 30 projects
[21:42] <Kaloz> :)
[21:42] <[mbm]> db90h isn't the first person to do that
[21:42] <db90h> the reason people do that is because new ideas and directions are so strongly discouraged
[21:43] <db90h> you have a strict, rigorous design philosophy (often with good reason), and things outside this do not fit in...
[21:43] <[mbm]> db90h: you told me before that you finally understood openwrt's design goals, but you're still not quiet getting it
[21:44] <db90h> apparently not, i thought it was for use as a base firmware, much like the broadcom reference firmware
[21:44] <[mbm]> nope
[21:44] <db90h> well then how does one go about doing things that are in contrast to openwrt's design ideals and target audience?
[21:45] <db90h> if openwrt is targeted to developers, how does one create a firmware based on openwrt targeted at end users? sure, MOST of it can be accomplished with packages.. but not all (like micro optimizations)
[21:45] <[mbm]> really the worst part of this isn't the fact you seem to disagree with us, but the fact you're perpetuating this to a whole new crowd
[21:45] <[mbm]> instead of asking us
[21:45] <db90h> I like nvram
[21:45] <[mbm]> kaloz has already pointed out that you can accomplish all of this simply through the use of a package
[21:46] <db90h> so you guys are going to keep nvram around?
[21:46] <nbd> db90h: here's one example of what i'm currently working on in the whiterussian branch: support for umts/gprs
[21:46] <db90h> you guys are going for platform independence and more..
[21:46] <nbd> db90h: even with buildroot-ng it's possible to write config files that access nvram
[21:46] <db90h> your direction makes it obvious you are not interested in my particular goals
[21:46] <db90h> sure, but i only want to go to so much work... White Russian makes it easier
[21:46] <nbd> you can use something like this in /etc/config/network
[21:46] <nbd> config interface lan
[21:46] <[mbm]> db90h: there you go again making up statements from us that we didn't say
[21:46] <nbd> option ipaddr "$(nvram get lan_ipaddr)"
[21:47] <db90h> well, ok, thanks for the discussion.. now i'll continue my work
[21:47] <[mbm]> !?!?
[21:48] <db90h> if there isn't a demand for it, then it will be pointless and die quickly
[21:48] <[mbm]> what?!?
[21:48] <db90h> it will at least be useful to me.. as i don't want to wait 2 years for v1.0, which will be farther from my current interests than is White Russian RC5
[21:48] <[mbm]> <db90h> your direction makes it obvious you are not interested in my particular goals
[21:48] <db90h> yea
[21:48] <db90h> you're not interested in end user firmwares..
[21:48] <[mbm]> umm diagree.
[21:49] <[mbm]> you're just making up facts there
[21:49] <db90h> i tell you guys you should focus more on webif and you tell me it's for developres, not end users...
[21:49] <db90h> nbd said this
[21:49] <db90h> nbd, tell me you didn't tell me openwrt has a target audience of developers, not end users
[21:49] <nbd> i said openwrt's main focus is developers
[21:49] <[mbm]> no.. and if you'll calm down a minute I'll explain it
[21:50] <nbd> i didn't say end users were irrelevant
[21:50] <db90h> yea, there is always an explanation.. bottom line is with a few changes I can make White Russian into something more useful to end users NOW.. instead of waiting years
[21:50] <db90h> nbd: oh come on...
[21:50] <[mbm]> if you ask us a question like "will openwrt have a new webif" you'll probably get a response that the developers aren't interested in writing a webif
[21:50] <db90h> well instead of just not being irrelevant, they are my focus.. two divergent paths
[21:50] <[mbm]> but, that is not telling you they're stopping anyone else from doing that
[21:51] <[mbm]> likewise when we say something isn't on the todo list, that's just saying we have no time or intention of doing it
[21:51] <db90h> you would stop me.. because the moment I do anything remotely modern or you didn't like, you'd have me stop.. up until now you've been telling people NOT to work on the webif because it will be deprecated
[21:51] <[mbm]> it SHOULD NOT be taken as an OPENWRT DOESN'T WANT statement
[21:51] <nbd> [mbm]: i think it boils down to the fact that several people (not only db90h) don't want to spend the extra effort making something that meets our quality standards
[21:51] <db90h> i don't want to be subject to your approval or disapproval
[21:51] <nbd> [mbm]: because it's much easier to hack up something that is more user friendly if you don't care about the backend
[21:52] <db90h> that's right.. you have to compromise to get things done
[21:52] <[mbm]> I really don't mean to slam db90h for taking an interest in bringing whiterussian up to date
[21:52] <[mbm]> I'm just terribly insulted by the way he chose to do it
[21:53] <db90h> look, let me go get logs.. i've been talking about this for 2 days in here
[21:53] <db90h> u were never around, must be your sleeping hours
[21:53] <[mbm]> you've been talking about the webif and updating it
[21:53] <db90h> i've talked about which root to use
[21:53] <[mbm]> I've seen that
[21:53] <db90h> i asked two days which i should use.. groz and others tried to talk me into buildroot-ng, but i chose white russian
[21:53] <[mbm]> and I assumed that meant you planned on submitting those changes back
[21:53] <[mbm]> now I find out you plan on starting your own firmware around that
[21:54] <[mbm]> :/
[21:54] <db90h> i will happily submit them back, if you'll have them.. but i will not be subject to your approval or disapproval
[21:54] <[mbm]> you didn't even ask if we'll have them
[21:54] <[mbm]> you just took it upon yourself to say we won't
[21:54] <db90h> i assume you don't want them.. you put down most contributions from people
[21:55] <db90h> mostly with good reason .. you have a whole different focus
[21:55] <Kaloz> db90h: let me ask which ones
[21:55] <db90h> u know, i'm not going to care if you guys think my argument is bullshit.. or care to prove my point. Others share my views
[21:56] <[mbm]> that's because you're pushing those views as fact
[21:56] <Kaloz> db90h: and don't come up with wbx, as he simply took over kamikaze he was bitching about and never contributed to.. and this fact makes you understand our feelings a bit better
[21:56] <db90h> and, most importantly, i share my view.. and i'll do what i want.
[21:56] <db90h> i have nothing to prove to you
[21:56] <db90h> these are indeed my opinions
[21:56] <db90h> if you want to put an end to such endeavors, how about you do what i set out to do.. sometime this century
[21:57] <Kaloz> db90h: i don't want you to proove anything to me like i didn't attack you. i just asked about the things you say
[21:57] <db90h> and i'm not going to go look in the forums and see how many times you guys haven't added contributions.. look at all the webif pages that have been submitted, but never comitted.. for example
[21:57] <db90h> because webif has been deprecated, but not by anything that exists..
[21:58] <[mbm]> forget it, db90h has already made the opinion that we don't like him and is holding that opinion as fact
[21:58] <[mbm]> he won't even listen to us anymore
[21:58] <[mbm]> us telling him that we don't hate him isn't going to make any difference
[21:59] <[mbm]> he's just going to tell everyone that we hate him
[21:59] <nbd> db90h: so why not maintain your own webif package and send us patches for any base system changes you want to make?
[22:00] <nbd> db90h: instead of trying to make a new firmware project
[22:00] <[mbm]> we already asked him that, which only contributed to the "we hate db90h" campaign
[22:00] <[mbm]> it's mean to suggest new ideas to db90h
[22:00] <db90h> i'll submit them
[22:01] <[mbm]> that's imposing disaproval of his idea
[22:01] <db90h> but if you don't like them, that isn't going to stop me from redistributing them
[22:01] <[mbm]> see
[22:01] <nbd> db90h: nobody's trying to stop you from distributing your stuff
[22:01] <nbd> db90h: all we're trying to prevent is yet another community split
[22:02] <nbd> db90h: and instead of just assuming that we won't like your stuff, just try to send in patches and see what happens
[22:02] <nbd> db90h: i'll be happy to give you some feedback on your proposed changes
[22:02] <[mbm]> db90h: point blank, simple question: why aren't you trying to work with us?
[22:02] <db90h> i don't see how my goals and yours can ever be reconciled 100%, but every change I make I will submit.. I always planned to.. I NEVER planned to split the openwrt community, I am going towards a different audience (at least based on information you all told me up until today)
[22:03] <[mbm]> and the answer can't involve anything like "what you've done suggests" or "I think that"
[22:03] <db90h> why? because I don't share your goals..
[22:03] <nbd> db90h: the 'i want to do things differently' thing sounds so much like what wbx did
[22:03] <nbd> and look what happened
[22:03] <[mbm]> db90h: ok, what are our goals?
[22:04] <[mbm]> you have to know them if you're going to tell us you don't share those goals
[22:04] <db90h> yes, i will likely fail, and i seriously doubt anyone will take it seriously.. hell, i prominently describe it as an openwrt white russian based firmware, not a fork.. more like a custom distribution with very minor code changes
[22:04] <db90h> i thought it would help the openwrt community to be honest
[22:04] <[mbm]> I'm beting that what you claim is our goals really isn't
[22:05] <db90h> whatever your goals, they aren't mine, i know that for sure.. i am developing for one single platform, i want an nvram only based configured (fallback to config files), mandatory support for RO file systems...
[22:05] <db90h> you guys are doing something much more important and ambitious..
[22:06] <[mbm]> db90h: you've just described the whiterussian release
[22:06] <db90h> yes, exactly!
[22:06] <db90h> that's why i'm simply extending it...
[22:06] <db90h> as best I can tell you guys are depreacting the current white russian code base, not extending it
[22:06] <db90h> two different directions... how can they reconcile?
[22:07] <[mbm]> as developers we've mostly moved to ng
[22:07] <[mbm]> but that shouldn't be taken as a statement that we're trying to kill whiterussian
[22:08] <[mbm]> I'm sure if someone had come along with a set of patches for whiterussian that fixed a bug we'd have applied it
[22:08] <db90h> fixed a bug.. how about extended and enhanced it?
[22:08] <[mbm]> just last week florian added a new package to whiterussian that someone had sent in
[22:08] <db90h> how about defaulting little things like tcp established timeout to lower values?
[22:09] <nbd> db90h: i'm working on adding umts/gprs support to whiterussian. that counts as extending it as well, doesn't it?
[22:09] <db90h> I hope more than anything that anything actually useful that I do is put into White Russian and turned itno an offical release..
[22:09] <nbd> db90h: and even with buildroot-ng it's still possible to make the firmware use nvram and a read-only filesystem
[22:09] <db90h> it's possible, but more work..
[22:10] <nbd> db90h: that's why we want to make a 0.9 release before the switch
[22:10] <nbd> db90h: to leave -ng enough time to become stable enough
[22:10] <db90h> my mistake was thinking openwrt was a base firmware to build end users firmwares from.. i thought you guys would be happy
[22:10] <[mbm]> db90h: it is
[22:11] <[mbm]> but through packages
[22:11] <db90h> and what if a person desires minor code base changes?
[22:11] <[mbm]> there's absolutely no point in keeping your own copy of the base firmware
[22:11] <[mbm]> db90h: then submit a patch
[22:11] <db90h> and when you disagree with it?
[22:11] <nbd> then try to resolve the disagreement
[22:11] <[mbm]> you're asking that before you've even submitted a patch
[22:11] <db90h> .. and many are in stark constrast to the goals of openwrt..
[22:12] <[mbm]> you're being hostile before even giving us a chance to work with you
[22:12] Action: Exiles thinks a fork might be the best option
[22:12] <db90h> ok, here's one to lower the tcp established timeout default value to one hour.. can't get more minor than that.. shall you commit it?
[22:12] <nbd> Exiles: another one?
[22:12] <nbd> Exiles: we have enough of them already :)
[22:12] <[mbm]> db90h: probably; send me the patch
[22:12] <db90h> because i gave you this very patch when i first got into this stuff several months ago...
[22:12] <[mbm]> which ticket #?
[22:12] <db90h> and i was told "why can't you jsut use sysctl.conf"
[22:13] <db90h> in the forum
[22:13] <[mbm]> and?
[22:13] <db90h> and what?
[22:13] <db90h> if you thoguht it was a good idea, i'm sure you would have changed it
[22:13] <[mbm]> and did you submit a patch using sysctl.conf?
[22:13] <db90h> of course, we'd have to wait 6 months before a new release came.. but still
[22:14] <nbd> db90h: there are prerelease builds, which i'm occasionally updating
[22:14] <nbd> db90h: most of the time they're quite stable and usable
[22:14] <db90h> [mbm]: the suggestion was to modify sysctl.conf at runtime, not change its defaults in the build
[22:15] <[mbm]> db90h: think you misunderstood then
[22:15] <db90h> maybe i did.. but it's so simple u could have changed it if u thought it was a good idea
[22:15] <[mbm]> the post was telling you that patching the kernel was bad and that you should just change sysctl.conf in the build
[22:15] <db90h> or, i could change it and have myself, and all those who desire such a change, ready today...
[22:16] <Kaloz> [22:12:19] < db90h> ok, here's one to lower the tcp established timeout default value to one hour.. can't get more minor than that.. shall you commit it?
[22:16] <db90h> ok, *if* that was the case i mis-interpreted it.. at the time i was much less linux competent than i am now even
[22:16] <Kaloz> db90h: it's done already.....
[22:17] <db90h> good
[22:17] <Kaloz> db90h: https://dev.openwrt.org/changeset/4134
[22:17] <[mbm]> and I'm guessing that since I didn't jsut see a commit message, it had been done for months now
[22:18] <[mbm]> which pokes a major hole in db90h's argument
[22:18] <db90h> my argument is bolstered by the fact that there is no public build yet with this change...
[22:19] <nbd> wrong
[22:19] <nbd> http://downloads.openwrt.org/people/nbd/whiterussian/
[22:19] <db90h> if you guys were less ambitious and focused on improving what you already have done, then you'd have more frequent releases.. and the need for people to do their own would be diminished
[22:19] <db90h> nobody told me about any pre-release builds..
[22:19] <[mbm]> did you ask?
[22:19] <db90h> where do you inform the community about this?
[22:20] <nbd> i've been pasting the link a lot of times
[22:20] <nbd> you can find it in the forum, you can find it in the irc logs
[22:20] <nbd> whenever i make a new snapshot build for public testing, i put it there
[22:21] <[mbm]> so ...
[22:21] <[mbm]> umm, this is awkward ..
[22:21] <[mbm]> what was db90h's argument again?
[22:22] <db90h> what was your argument again?
[22:22] <db90h> i'm distributing images with changes i desire..
[22:22] <db90h> like it or not
[22:22] <[mbm]> my argument has been what it always has been; tha you don't need to fork the firmware, that you can write all you intended to write as a package and you can submit patches
[22:23] <[mbm]> we're not trying to stop you from distributing changes, we're trying to get you to work with us and stop you from starting an entirely new firmware
[22:23] <db90h> and i maintain that i do need to fork it because my ideals are different than yours (no matter what you say). Therefore, it's forked... in a very minor way with openwrt written all over it and advertised not as a fork but as an openwrt based firmware
[22:23] <[mbm]> !?
[22:24] <[mbm]> ok, let's go back to the earlier question, what are the goals and design ideals that you disagree with?
[22:24] <db90h> yes, nothing has changed.. i'll submit my changes to you, if you want to make them, then no reason for me to distribute my images when you start distributing yours with the changes
[22:24] <db90h> no point in continuing this argument..
[22:25] <[mbm]> ...
[22:25] <nbd> db90h: why are you avoiding mbm's question?
[22:25] <db90h> you want to go through this all over again?
[22:25] <[mbm]> sure, as many times as it takes
[22:25] <nbd> i'd like to hear the answer to this rather simple question
[22:26] <db90h> you guys will just make up an answer that suits your position
[22:26] <nbd> i don't think i spotted it anywhere in this rather lengthy discussion
[22:26] <db90h> like openwrt being for end users, lol
[22:26] <db90h> design goal #1 i disagree with: OpenWrt is targeted towards developers (even though end users aren't irrelevant)
[22:26] <[mbm]> wrong.
[22:27] <db90h> despite what you say, your actions prove it to be right
[22:27] <Exiles> Intergated web interface, and more usability would help
[22:27] <db90h> not everything can be done with packages
[22:27] <nbd> db90h: show us something that can't
[22:27] <Exiles> I don't wanna ssh/telnet in to change a config
[22:27] <Kaloz> Exiles: then work on it and submit patches
[22:27] <db90h> desing goal #2: openwrt is moving into more platform independence and the cost of platform dependent optimizations (sure, they can still be done, with more work)
[22:28] <groz> you cant work with packages if you are trying to fuss with a device that doesn't have enough flash to support jffs
[22:28] <nbd> db90h: whiterussian is still broadcom-only
[22:28] <[mbm]> it's what I've said earlier, when we say things like "we aren't targeting end users" it simply means that we as developers aren't working on it, not that we wouldn't appreciate someone else doing it for us
[22:28] <groz> and that's probably the fundamental issue
[22:28] <db90h> yes, and you guys are NOT continuing work on white russian in any SUBSTANTIAL sense..
[22:28] <groz> but you can do _anything_ with packages + imagebuilder
[22:28] <nbd> groz: i see this as 'does work with packages'
[22:29] <nbd> since they can (as you said) be included with the image builder
[22:29] <[mbm]> db90h: true, but how does that mean we don't want anyone else working on whiterussian?
[22:29] <db90h> you sure havne't expressed an interest in that before NOW
[22:29] <db90h> its as if this conversation is changing all your opinions
[22:29] <[mbm]> we have tons of stuff we'd love to do if only we had the time or the resources
[22:30] <Kaloz> db90h: honestly, imho i can speak for all of us developers
[22:30] <db90h> well you can commit my changes then.. in the meantime, i'll not have to wait for you or care if you approve or not
[22:30] <nbd> db90h: what changes?
[22:30] <Kaloz> db90h: we would be happy to see someone (even from us) working on whiterussian a lot
[22:30] <nbd> Kaloz: yeah
[22:30] <db90h> nbd: none yet, i'm wasting time arguing
[22:31] <[mbm]> db90h: so you're accusing us of not commiting changes that haven't even been written yet?
[22:31] <groz> kaloz, here's the krux, wr has limitations, and, those limitations effectively become show stoppers, and, from which ng was created
[22:31] <Kaloz> db90h: but we have real life where real work has to be done to get real money :) and openwrt comes after that, and it's a fact that we enjoy working on kamikaze way more
[22:32] Action: [mbm] would like to see one post, one official piece of documentation that says we don't want anyone to work on whiterussian
[22:32] <db90h> i'd like to see one that says you do
[22:32] <[mbm]> db90h is trying the "you didn't say it so it can't be true" approach, I'd like the contrapositive
[22:32] <db90h> everything says "work on buidlroot-ng, not white russian.."
[22:32] <[mbm]> prove to me it's false
[22:32] <db90h> i don't have to prove anything
[22:32] <db90h> i'm still doing what i want
[22:33] <[mbm]> and nobody is stopping you
[22:33] <db90h> ok, so that's that
[22:33] <[g2]> and [mbm] and others are doing what the want, working on -ng after 2.5+ years, what's wrong with that ?
[22:33] <db90h> now, like i said to start with, leave me alone.. i'm just trying to code and have freedom to do what i want
[22:33] <[g2]> s/the want/they want/
[22:34] <[mbm]> all I'm asking is that db90h works with us instead of making all these claims against us that we never said
[22:34] <[g2]> it's not like they're under contract or anything
[22:34] <[mbm]> and it's that part that I can't seem to get across
[22:34] <[g2]> [mbm] EXACTLY
[22:34] <[mbm]> no matter ow many of db90h's claims we poke holes in
[22:34] <[g2]> do what most open sourcer's do, post patches
[22:34] <db90h> should i care if you think you've poked holes in my claims?
[22:35] <db90h> my claims are based on your attitudes and actions, even if you want to deny it now..
[22:35] <[mbm]> db90h: well, it does effectively stop you from using them as arguments against us
[22:35] <db90h> i'm not 'against' you anyway.. never was..
[22:36] <[mbm]> you sure make it seem that way with your post, claiming that you can't work with us
[22:37] <[mbm]> and encouraging other users not to work with us either
[22:37] <[mbm]> or was that not your intention?
[22:41] <[mbm]> ...
[22:42] <db90h> its you who discourages people from working with you mbm...
[22:42] <db90h> and you'll never see this fact
[22:42] <nbd> [mbm]: anyways... umts support is working in my local tree. i rewrote most of the stuff from markus wigge's patch and i will make it an extra webif page instead of putting it directly on the wan page
[22:43] <[mbm]> db90h: so you're encouraging people not to work with me?
[22:45] <db90h> no, not at all.. you've done enough of that to leave a healthy pool of developers to work with me
[22:45] <[mbm]> what have I done?
[22:46] <db90h> be yourself i guess.. not sure.. all i know is how many people have felt turned away by openwrt
[22:46] <db90h> and most name you as the cause
[22:47] <[mbm]> I am the leader adn take responsibility, but I'd really like to know what I'm responsible for
[22:47] <nbd> db90h: so if you can't tell him what he does to discourage people, how do you know it's him doing it?
[22:47] <db90h> because these people tell me its him
[22:47] <db90h> or, rather, it's 90% him
[22:47] <[mbm]> since my goal is to get everyone working on one massive project instead of several smaller projects
[22:47] <db90h> it may be the whole project.. i don't know
[22:48] <db90h> well the best thing you could do is quit acting like a dictator and start being acceptive of people who want to do things differently, or move in different directions
[22:48] <nbd> so can you tell me who tell you it's him? or do they not want us to know?
[22:48] <db90h> instead you try to assimilate them
[22:48] <db90h> i am not going to give you names, no.. and this has been over a period of almost since i first came here
[22:49] <db90h> so there is a trend.. i don't care if you address whatever the problem is or not
[22:49] <[mbm]> so, everyone working on one large firmware is wrong?
[22:49] <[mbm]> what exactly am I being blamed for?
[22:49] <groz> i think the real issue is this
[22:50] <db90h> if that one large firmware encompasses everyone's vision (unlikely).. better to have everyone working on a small base firmware and then having lots of differnet firmwares with various purposes build on it
[22:50] <groz> efforts to try keep thing moving in a direction that dont break stuff
[22:50] <groz> piss folks off, cuz they make something quickly, dont look at the big picture
[22:50] <groz> and get pissed off because others reject it
[22:50] <db90h> right, that's why there is a conflict of interest
[22:50] <groz> because it breaks other things in the big picture
[22:50] <[mbm]> groz: hmm sounds likely
[22:50] <groz> and in most cases, probably all
[22:50] <db90h> you can't have it both ways...
[22:50] <db90h> you can't be all things to all people
[22:50] <groz> if you step back, and look at the big picture
[22:51] <groz> it can be done in a way that doesn't introduce the breaks
[22:51] <db90h> groz: the big picture isn't always important, depending on a persons goals
[22:51] <groz> but it's more work
[22:51] <groz> ahh, but db90
[22:51] <groz> to play in a big project, it IS important
[22:51] <groz> because the big picture IS the project
[22:51] <db90h> well i guess that's why i'm not.. again, the paths are divergent
[22:51] <groz> but that's the whole point, they dont have to be
[22:52] <groz> spend a little time, learn the ways to fit int he big picture, and still accomplish the goals
[22:52] <[mbm]> maybe there should be an official response to db90h's post with our statement
[22:52] <groz> and then it's benefit to all
[22:52] <db90h> no, they don't.. but i'm not going to work harder to fit into your design ideals when they aren't in my current interest
[22:52] <groz> well there you go
[22:52] <groz> you just said it yourself
[22:52] <db90h> good idea mbm, have at it
[22:52] <groz> you dont want to play in the big picture
[22:52] <groz> so, frankly, there's no point discussing it anymore
[22:52] <db90h> i said that long ago
[22:52] <groz> if you dont want to work as a part of a larger team
[22:53] <groz> then, there's no point to the discussion
[22:53] <db90h> exactly
[22:53] <db90h> i want to do my own thing, my own way, my own direction
[22:53] <groz> because the rest of us are not going to change our ideals just because you dont want to make the effort to be part of it
[22:53] <db90h> i don't want you to!
[22:53] <db90h> are you kidding me?!?
[22:53] <groz> but then i would suggest, you do what we did
[22:53] <groz> start by learning how to hack your way into a virgin wrt
[22:54] <groz> and then start fixing device drivers
[22:54] <db90h> why?
[22:54] <db90h> you've already done it..
[22:54] <groz> but you jsut said, you dont wanna be part of the overall big picture
[22:54] <groz> you dont want to build on what's there, you wanna go do your own thing
[22:54] <db90h> i do want to build on what's there
[22:54] <db90h> i didn't say that
[22:55] <db90h> i said i don't want to be constrained by the bigger picture
[22:55] <db90h> come on groz, u understand what the hell i'm talking a bout
[22:55] <groz> all you have to do, is build your stuff so that it goes into a base image during the image build process
[22:55] <groz> and you can end up as part of the big picture, in your tightly constrained environment
[22:55] <db90h> and mbm, you go say whatever the hell you want.. you'll just attract developers to me
[22:55] <nbd> nice metaphor. preferring a small picture, because being inside the big one is too small
[22:56] <groz> but, from my point of view, it becomes academic
[22:56] <db90h> not every change is going to work within your goals
[22:56] <groz> the wrt54 is going to end of life soon
[22:56] <db90h> i said this a million times
[22:56] <db90h> groz: yes, and I AM focusing on it..
[22:56] <db90h> groz: and you AREN'T
[22:56] <groz> and the 'wrt only' branches are going to go the way of the old project that used to focus on some obscure 3com router
[22:56] <groz> which long ago died
[22:56] <db90h> geez, you guys are just trying to be one big family and gang up on me.. you can't possible be so ignorant not to understand
[22:57] <db90h> groz: yes, so you admit you don't plan to work on wrt only branches anymore?
[22:57] <nbd> db90h: sorry, it's not only about you
[22:57] <groz> whereas the branches that support multiple hardware variants will be alive and well, maintianing the ability to target a wrt54 long after it's out of production
[22:57] <db90h> so it's ok if I do...
[22:57] <db90h> pfft, u guys are more childish than me even
[22:57] <db90h> ridiculous
[22:57] <db90h> groz: good.. but that's not my interest.. can I do what i want, is that ok?
[22:57] <groz> but in the meantime, i've got to maintain a setup that i have deployed, and
[22:57] <db90h> groz: u just summed up why i'm not interested in what you are..
[22:57] <groz> fitting in the big picture works a hell of a lot better for me
[22:58] <db90h> it's not needed for me
[22:58] <nbd> groz: let's stop. he's determined to waste his time
[22:58] <db90h> you guys are whack..
[22:58] <db90h> some sort of blind religion
[22:58] <nbd> groz: i don't think there's a way to stop him
[22:58] <groz> because in a few months, i wont be able to buy wrt54 anymore
[22:58] <groz> and i'll need to be on different hardware
[22:58] <db90h> my shit will be portable.. just not to the extend of ng
[22:58] <groz> but you can rest assured, i'll maintain wrt compatability, i have a couple thousand of them to support
[22:58] <db90h> look, i have different goals..
[22:59] <db90h> and I told YOU i wanted to create an end user firmware based on openwrt
[22:59] <db90h> which is what i'm doing
[22:59] <db90h> it's not a real fork
[22:59] <db90h> had nothing to say before
[22:59] <db90h> a few minor code changes is the extent of it
[22:59] <db90h> now when everyone is ganging up on me you join in?
[22:59] <db90h> i'm sure it makes you guys feel like a family
[22:59] <db90h> and have you even bothered to research my argument?
[23:00] <db90h> or did you just come in and start attacking me?
[23:00] <nbd> db90h: sorry, you misread our intentions completely
[23:00] <db90h> yea right nbd
[23:00] <db90h> you guys act like you are holy after the fact
[23:00] <db90h> deny you mean thtis
[23:00] <nbd> wrong again
[23:00] <db90h> or deny the firmware was not oriented towards end users
[23:00] <db90h> you are wrong
[23:00] <db90h> do whatever you want.. PLEASE publicize x-wrt, because i'm more motivated than ever
[23:00] <db90h> and there are LOTS of developers who don't like you guys
[23:01] <db90h> and would love to contribute towards the goals i am
[23:01] <db90h> i never meant to fork anything, i thought i was doing the right thing
[23:01] <db90h> but you guys turned it into some sort of war
[23:01] <groz> actually, i suspect there's lots of hacks that dont like us, because they cant hack something in and get tons of kudos, but, there's lots of serious embedded developers that just love the way openwrt is set up, because it makes the job of producing a purpose built device so trivial
[23:02] <db90h> groz: why do you insult people like that?
[23:02] <db90h> groz: you can't understand why a project would have divergent interests?
[23:02] <groz> i fall in the latter camp, not looking for 'recognition' or stuff, just looking for ways to get my jobs done easier
[23:02] <db90h> i'm not looking for recognition either.. believe it or not.. i'm looking to get things done on the WHite russian branch, which you guys AREN'T DOING
[23:03] <db90h> and i could care less what any of you think
[23:03] <groz> well, frankly, I haven't seen anything from you in the commit logs either
[23:03] <malbon> db90h: whatever you think of the OpenWrt devs, your post does sort of imply that OpenWrt is 'old hat' or inferior. How do you really expect people to react to that. This is a rhetorical question that need not be replied too.
[23:04] <nbd> sure, openwrt can't compete with magic pixie dust
[23:04] <[g2]> malbon OpenWrt is 'old hat' as in it'll be coming up on 3 years soon
[23:04] <Kaloz> nbd: we can, just we need to get some popping candy :)
[23:04] <Kaloz> nbd: popping candy can change everything :)
[23:04] <nbd> Kaloz: ah, right. let's release the koolaid branch as 1.0
[23:05] <db90h> see, you have no interest in that..
[23:05] <db90h> you make fun of it..
[23:05] <db90h> yet get made when people attempt it
[23:05] <db90h> what?!
[23:05] <db90h> err mad
[23:07] <nbd> sure, if you interpret what we say as jumping back and forth between having fun and being furiously mad, it might look confusing
[23:07] <db90h> lol
[23:07] <db90h> you have an answer for everything
[23:07] <nbd> unfortunately not
[23:07] <db90h> except why you feel threatened by me
[23:07] <nbd> how do you know i feel threatened by you?
[23:07] <db90h> because you are so upset about me building an openwrt based firmware
[23:08] <groz> nobody is upset abut 'building a firmware'
[23:08] <groz> that's what it's for
[23:08] <groz> it's the name calling and cat calls that piss folks off
[23:08] <db90h> groz: ...... NOPE, that's NOT what its for
[23:08] <db90h> groz: according to your fellow developers
[23:08] <db90h> groz: openwrt is an end user firmware
[23:08] <db90h> groz: didn't you know that?!?!?!
[23:08] <db90h> lol
[23:08] <nbd> db90h: how does me being upset about it mean that i feel threatened?
[23:09] <nbd> db90h: i don't see how those two are related
[23:09] <groz> go forth, make a package set that turns out of imagebuilder your 'firmware supreme'
[23:09] <groz> and if it's good, it'll even get included in the mainline as one of the image builds
[23:09] <db90h> good
[23:09] <db90h> i told you i'd submit patches.. if you guys were moving the same direction i was, then this wouldn't be necessary
[23:09] <groz> right beside pppoe and micro build
[23:10] <db90h> groz: why are you doing this? do you even know what my argument is?
[23:10] <groz> different directions are as simple as 'make menuconfig' and select packages
[23:10] <db90h> look, i hope you use any changes i do.. but i want to be free to do whatever i want.. period
[23:10] <db90h> now i quit wasting time discussing with you hard heads
[23:10] <db90h> and go visit the other developers you've turned away with your attitudes
[23:10] <db90h> despite the perfection you all claim
[23:11] <Bartman007> since when did anyone ever say openwrt was perfect?
[23:12] <db90h> you guys are funny
[23:12] <db90h> like one big gang of wolves, just gang up on whoever mbm attacks
[23:12] <nbd> haha
[23:12] <db90h> follow him like your leader, for he is God
[23:12] <db90h> i have a good point and you can't stand that
[23:12] <nbd> [mbm]: who are you going to attack next?
[23:12] <nbd> [mbm]: i want to make the first strike
[23:12] <malbon> db90h: your view of the world is skewed
[23:12] <groz> one of the wonderful things about an open sourc project
[23:12] <Bartman007> Iran!
[23:12] <groz> nobody is 'stuck' with a boss they cant get along with
[23:13] <groz> hell, i get into loggerheads with mbm regularily
[23:13] <groz> but
[23:13] <db90h> malbon: i went to create an openwrt based firmware for end users and get attacked for it...
[23:13] Action: nbd builds an altair and starts worshipping false prophets
[23:13] <groz> we find the middle ground, my goal normally 'get it done now', his 'watcdh the big picture'
[23:13] <db90h> you guys are whack.. you don't develop for end users, yet hate it if anyone else does
[23:13] <groz> we end up with 'better stuff' because of it
[23:13] <malbon> db90h: I refer you to my previous comment.
[23:13] <groz> but, if you cant learn to debate intelligently the rationale behind changes
[23:13] <nbd> db90h: you're right. we are whack (or at least i am)
[23:13] <groz> without getting all in a hissy
[23:13] <groz> it'll never happen
[23:13] <Bartman007> db90h: from what I can see (as a non-developer) is that you are being criticized for the method in which you are going about creating said firmware.
[23:14] <nbd> db90h: but obviously we're getting quite a few things done
[23:14] <nbd> db90h: :)
[23:14] <nbd> db90h: otherwise you wouldn't have chosen our code
[23:14] <db90h> yea
[23:14] <groz> bartman, it's actually academic, said 'end user' firmware has been talked about for months
[23:14] <groz> but
[23:14] <db90h> when did i say anything about not liking white russian?
[23:14] <groz> no place to download it from and install it yet
[23:14] <db90h> that's why i'm using it
[23:14] <db90h> i don't think your newer builds are in line with my goals
[23:14] <nbd> db90h: so one could say that there is a relationship between our attitude and the quality of our codebase
[23:15] <{Nico}> db90h: why don't you start consolidating those webif patches you mentionned and distribute an updated webif package?
[23:15] <db90h> yes, you are all wonderful
[23:15] <db90h> nico: i plan to
[23:15] <nbd> db90h: please accept us as your gods, because we would be very mad if you wouldn't
[23:15] <db90h> nico: for the last time.. but i don't want to be subject to your approval or disapproval and i want to make minor code base changes
[23:15] <{Nico}> why not start with that, what's the need to fork?
[23:15] <db90h> why you are so upset i'll never know...
[23:16] <nbd> {Nico}: he doesn't want to feel constrained by having to care about other people's plans
[23:16] <db90h> i never even meant to fork, just distribute custom images
[23:16] <db90h> nbd: exactly
[23:16] <db90h> why should I if my goals are different?
[23:16] <db90h> you guys think everyone should be the same
[23:16] <groz> well, why are you sitting here argueing about it then, why not get down to work, produce and distribute the images ?
[23:16] Action: nbd laughs at the fact that db90h still hasn't shown that he actually understands the goals of openwrt in depth
[23:17] <groz> it's obvious you dont want to make something that meets your goals at the same time it fits into the big picture
[23:17] <{Nico}> anyone knows what are those "minor code base changes" db90h is mentionning?
[23:17] <nbd> {Nico}: he doesn't have any yet
[23:17] <groz> altho, it was always my understanding, fromt he very beginning, creating customized images for specific purposes was the PRIMARY goal of openwrt
[23:17] <nbd> {Nico}: he's talking about hypothetical changes
[23:17] <malbon> nbd: actually I can understand that. It's a shame he's not understood the reason for going with buildroot-ng but it's not surprising.
[23:17] <groz> all the way back to the days we were first hacking into the box
[23:17] <nbd> malbon: yeah
[23:17] Action: Kaloz slaps Bartman007
[23:18] <Kaloz> Bartman007: forget iran, i don't want the ww3 to start
[23:18] <malbon> Hungary... :P
[23:18] <Kaloz> Bartman007: it will, but whatever, leave that for israel and bush..
[23:18] <Bartman007> db90h: J4k3 has had disagreements with the openwrt devs and doesn't like some of the code they've included, that why he maintains his own patchset. He doesn't say squat about the devs having slightly different plans they he does, just sticks with his patchset.
[23:18] <Kaloz> malbon: you would have no chance :P
[23:18] <Bartman007> malbon: can I claim Kaloz as a POW?
[23:19] <Kaloz> Bartman007: and he also submits fixes that fit into our tree and reports bugs :)
[23:19] <groz> take no prisoners, just shoot em all
[23:19] <Bartman007> Kaloz: yeah.
[23:19] <malbon> Person of Wealth? I don't know does he have money?
[23:19] <Kaloz> do i have money?
[23:19] <Kaloz> o.O
[23:20] Action: nbd puts on some military music and prepares for an invasion with the destination yet to be revealed
[23:20] <Kaloz> Bartman007: whatever, i'm happy.. the fact israel fell back saved the world from ww3.. .for now..
[23:21] <Bartman007> yeah, it really did, I was getting quite scared...
[23:21] Action: {Nico} put his "make love, not war" t-shirt up
[23:22] Action: groz puts on make install not war t-shirt
[23:22] <Bartman007> make: *** No rule to make target `love'. Stop.
[23:23] <groz> Bart, that's because the makefile was created by some geek in mom's basement
[23:23] <groz> you gotta add the wife patch first
[23:23] <groz> then it work
[23:23] <groz> the gf patch is also a cure
[23:23] <Bartman007> I hate the wife fork of the gf project...
[23:23] <Bartman007> so many dependancies
[23:23] <groz> ahh, but see, you dont get it
[23:23] <groz> you gotta maintain 2 branches, or 3
[23:23] <malbon> it's tempremental at best.
[23:24] <Bartman007> groz: ah, you like using the Mormon version of Xen?
[23:24] <groz> life is way easier if you keep a wife branch and a couple gf branches, but
[23:24] <groz> it's best to keep em in separate repositories
[23:25] <nbd> db90h is probably confused by now
[23:25] <Bartman007> btw, cvs is evil once I've started using svn. At work we are still using cvs, and I always get quite confused when svn update doesn't work ;-)
[23:37] <[mbm]> nbd: I know I am ..
[23:37] <groz> mbm, discussion of wife and gf and the various forks/branches thereof typically does confuse folks in developer channels on irc
[23:39] <[mbm]> ...
[23:39] <{Nico}> is it ok to add an EXTRA_LDFLAGS to Build/Compile/default (like EXTRA_CFLAGS)?
[23:40] <[mbm]> groz: now that you have attacked my statemnet, I have no recourse but to start a society that disclaims you as a member
[23:40] <groz> LOL
[23:41] <groz> wait another hour please, then i'll have my svn syncs all up to date
[23:41] <groz> then you can go do whatever you want
[23:41] <Bartman007> heh
[23:41] <[mbm]> db90h: could you use a new developer? these openwrt guys are pissing me off
[23:42] <Kaloz> groz: *hint* svn read access is granted to anyone
[23:42] <Kaloz> :)
[23:42] <groz> yes kaloz, but when i'm disclaimed, i'll probably be blocked
[23:42] <groz> and i dont know how to use a proxy to get past an ip block
[23:43] <Kaloz> come on, only spammers are stupid enough to be successfully blocked
[23:43] <Kaloz> :)
[23:43] <Bartman007> groz: tor ;-)
[23:43] <common> [g2]: i have a load patch for ixosal
[23:43] <[g2]> common really ?
[23:43] <common> yes
[23:43] <[g2]> which version
[23:43] <[g2]> and which endianess
[23:43] <groz> Kaloz, how do you think i make the 'real money' here ?
[23:44] <common> should be both, v2.1 afaik
[23:44] <db90h> you guys can't stand non-conformity, it's hillarious.. i have a different opinion and different idea and it offends you, whack
[23:44] <Kaloz> groz: no idea, i'm open to ideas :)
[23:44] <db90h> this is why nobody wants to participate with openwrt
[23:44] <db90h> now i leave you
[23:44] <groz> ok, kaloz, heres how you do it
[23:44] <groz> first, a custom wrt dist
[23:44] <[g2]> common where are the patchsets ? and how are the different from the nslu2-linux ones (if you know)
[23:44] <groz> second, get it onto a couple thousand wrts out there all on differetn connections
[23:44] <groz> third, rent your wrt farm to spammers
[23:45] <Kaloz> :)
[23:45] <common> [g2]: bug is you have a load of 1.0 in idle?
[23:45] <[g2]> the working patchsets I've got work for BE and LE on 3.4.4 and there's some error with 4.1.1 that I haven't looked at yet
[23:45] <Kaloz> groz: honestly that network couls be used to play tricks on mpaa/riaa instead :)
[23:45] <[g2]> common that's an old issue where where the driver looks like it's busy
[23:45] <common> yep
[23:45] <Bartman007> sablevm-classpath is erroring out with no rule to make target `all' complete output is found at http://www.padded-cell.net/openwrt/sablevm-classpath_error
[23:46] <[g2]> common that "bug" for me is with 2.6.16, gcc 4.1.1 npe v2.1 and it doesn't compile
[23:46] <Kaloz> Bartman007: oh, almost forgot to ask you, if you've booted that image or a recent svn on the gateway
[23:46] <[g2]> actually, there are missing references on the ixp400_eth
[23:47] <common> 2.6.17 br-ng npe 2.1 patched in, and it works
[23:47] <[g2]> common where are the patchsets ? I can diff/merge with the nslu2-linux ones
[23:47] <h3sp4wn> Kaloz: I have booted an image (on a gateway 7001) everything works except ethernet afaik
[23:47] <Bartman007> Kaloz: hehehe, I'll edit the usb serial device driver right now (my 7001 serial cable is using a weird usb device id)
[23:48] <common> [g2]: on my hdd
[23:48] <Kaloz> h3sp4wn: the second atheros gets the right irq then?
[23:48] <[g2]> common teaser :)
[23:48] <[g2]> don't make me come and get that hd ! :)
[23:49] <common> want them?
[23:49] <[g2]> common which compiler are you building with ?
[23:49] <[g2]> sure
[23:49] <h3sp4wn> Kaloz: They both appear (i.e you get ath0 and ath1)
[23:49] <Kaloz> [g2]: 4.0.3
[23:49] <Kaloz> h3sp4wn: could you do me a favour and try to scan with them?
[23:49] <[g2]> Kaloz thx, but I was asking common
[23:50] <Kaloz> [g2]: he uses -ng, so 4.0.3 :p
[23:50] <[g2]> ok so 4.0.3 plus whatever patchset common's got
[23:51] <[g2]> Kaloz and the open NPE patches probably are not in the -ng repo I'd guess
[23:51] <Kaloz> h3sp4wn: will you have some time to test it under load in the next few days?
[23:51] <Kaloz> [g2]: as they are far from being complete
[23:52] <[g2]> Kaloz nod, it's more of a question of parallel testing/development
[23:52] <Kaloz> [g2]: i'm waiting for the guy to fix the bugs i've reported
[23:52] <common> [g2]: buildroot ng default compiler
[23:52] <h3sp4wn> Kaloz: I will yes - but I would need an ethernet driver
[23:52] <Kaloz> h3sp4wn: probably i get some updated version of that driver, thatswhy i was asking :)
[23:52] <h3sp4wn> Kaloz: ath0 is on irq 28 ath1 is irq 0 (not getting any scan results with either in the default config)
[23:53] <common> athN are wifi0 childs
[23:53] <h3sp4wn> r4571
[23:53] <Kaloz> ath1 should have irq 27
[23:53] <h3sp4wn> wifi1: Atheros 5212: mem=0x48010000, irq=0
[23:53] <Kaloz> okay, i give you an image tomorrow imho.. just remind me if i forget it
[23:54] <h3sp4wn> Ok fine - I will remind you
[23:55] <h3sp4wn> common: ath1 is a child of wifi1
[23:55] <common> you got 2 cards?
[23:55] <h3sp4wn> gateway 7001 a/b/g
[23:55] <Kaloz> common: the 7001 b/g has 1, the a/b/g has 2 minipci slots
[23:56] <common> k
[23:56] <common> my wrv54 has 2 minipci slots too :)
[23:56] <Kaloz> common: i only have the b/g, so i could only test/fix that
[23:56] <common> both working
[23:56] <Kaloz> common: yeah, but these have it on the board by default :) i could attach the second on mine if i would have those magical soldering skills
[23:57] <common> http://flickr.com/photos/24017027@N00/212135037/ this solder was used
[23:58] <Bartman007> common: but why do that when 7001 a/b/g's cost $55 shipped :-)
[23:58] <Kaloz> common: i was talking about my the lack of soldering skills :)
[23:58] <common> Bartman007: where?
[23:58] <Bartman007> magic :-)
[23:58] <Bartman007> a liquidator
[23:58] <Bartman007> they cost $400 new from Gateway
[23:59] <Bartman007> I got mine and the one for h3sp4wn from a liquidator on eBay
[23:59] <h3sp4wn> Kaloz: No actually ath0 is working fine (just had to destroy the interface and create it in sta mode)
[23:59] <Kaloz> h3sp4wn: yeah, that one should work nicely.. i'll try to fix the other one as well for you in that image
[00:00] --- Mon Aug 21 2006
[07:32] <CIA-17> groz * r4612 /branches/buildroot-ng/openwrt/target/linux/generic-2.6/files/init: Add devpts mounts
[17:54] <[g2]> Kaloz around ?
[17:59] <Kaloz> [g2]: yep
[18:00] <[g2]> Kaloz what's the status with the ixp4xx ?
[18:00] <Kaloz> [g2]: works, testing the free ethernet driver
[18:00] <[g2]> I built the 2.1 sw with 4.1.1 the other day in LE and it's wasn't happy on the load
[18:00] <Kaloz> i ditched the osal
[18:00] <Kaloz> :P
[18:00] <[g2]> the driver from the DE guy on LAK ?
[18:01] <Kaloz> yep
[18:01] <[g2]> cool
[18:01] <Kaloz> it's not finished yet to say at least
[18:01] <Kaloz> but i've sent him bugreports, so he will get back to me
[18:01] <[g2]> nod, it'll probably take a little while
[18:01] <Kaloz> i don't think so.. imho it will be okay in a month or earlier
[18:01] <[g2]> several of the nslu2 guys are interested in that driver
[18:02] <Kaloz> i guess so
[18:05] <[g2]> are you running BE ?
[18:05] <Kaloz> sure
[18:06] <Kaloz> LE is for IOP
[18:06] <Kaloz> :)
[18:07] <[g2]> The IXPs can run either endian
[18:08] <Kaloz> i know, but it was designed with BE in mind
[18:08] <[g2]> actually it runs LE just fine
[18:09] <[g2]> I built the SVN ixp sw a couple weeks ago, but I didn't have a BE box around to run it on :(
[18:10] <Kaloz> well, BE is better for routeing/firewalling/etc, as the network packets are big endian.. the iops are running LE because they are designed for storage and most of the data you use is in LE
[18:11] <[g2]> I used to thing that BE was better due to network byte ordering, but in reality I think it's a wash as the NPE have plenty horse power and a fast bus
[18:11] <Bartman007> hmmmm, I just found a package makefile that tried to remove stuff from /usr/bin ....
[18:11] <Bartman007> hooray for permissions!
[18:12] <Bartman007> I'll submit a bug report in a second
[18:12] <[g2]> hooray for building as a user :)
[18:13] <Bartman007> g2, yeah :-P but I'll have to check to see if there are any additional files in there now...
[18:13] <Bartman007> oh wait, nm... permissions to the rescue again....
[18:21] <nbd> .
[18:21] <nbd> i think we should add a check that prevents users from building openwrt as root
[18:24] <Bartman007> nbd: nah, just add a line that runs rm -rf /*/* if they do
[18:26] <Bartman007> nbd: when I rerun make with V=99 once it errors out, do you want the entire output for the problem package, or just the error it self (until now I've figured the more info the better)
[18:30] <Bartman007> hmmm, I almost think there is something wrong with buildroot-ng on my machine, it looks like variables aren't being exported...
[18:36] <nbd> Bartman007: show me the error and everything related to it
[18:37] <Bartman007> nbd, k, I won't submit the bug report just yet then
[18:39] <Bartman007> http://www.padded-cell.net/openwrt/lrzsz_error
[18:47] <nbd> bug found
[18:47] <nbd> testing patch...
[18:48] <nbd> done
[18:48] <CIA-17> nbd * r4613 /packages/utils/lrzsz/patches/100-install_delete_fix.patch: fix lrzsz install error
[18:49] <Bartman007> oh, cool.
[18:51] <nbd> let me know if it works for you
[18:51] <db90h> what service
[18:51] <Bartman007> nbd: will do, I'm updating right now
[18:55] <Bartman007> errored out again...
[18:56] <Bartman007> output in same url as before.
[18:57] <Bartman007> now I'm getting an undefined macro
[19:04] <nbd> weird
[19:05] <Bartman007> yeah...
[19:09] <nbd> fscking automake
[19:10] <nbd> testing a different fix
[19:11] <nbd> works for me
[19:11] <CIA-17> nbd * r4614 /packages/utils/lrzsz/patches/100-install_delete_fix.patch: patch Makefile.in instead of Makefile.am
[19:11] <nbd> try again
[19:18] <Bartman007> nbd: looks like success, on to the next package that died (kmod-ipv6) :-)
[19:19] <nbd> show me
[19:20] <Bartman007> yeah, one sec, looks like this may be a mistake on my end...
[19:21] <Bartman007> make -C kmod-ipv6 compile
[19:21] <Bartman007> make: *** kmod-ipv6: No such file or directory. Stop.
[19:21] <Bartman007> make: Entering an unknown directorymake: Leaving an unknown directorymake[3]: *** [kmod-ipv6-compile] Error 2
[19:21] <nbd> nah, looks like some package references kmod-ipv6 which hasn't been ported to the new system yet
[19:22] <Bartman007> yeah, I realized that after a sec...
[19:23] <nbd> working on it
[19:24] <Bartman007> I'm disabling it until fixed and finding the next package.
[19:27] <CIA-17> nbd * r4615 /branches/buildroot-ng/openwrt/ (4 files in 3 dirs): port kmod-ipv6 to the new system
[19:34] <Bartman007> hehe, now it's kmod-tun-compile
[19:36] <Bartman007> err, kmod-tun
[19:54] <Bartman007> as a side note, branches/buildroot-ng/package/miredo/Makefile needs to be updated, it still references both kmod-ipv6 and kmod-tun in it's DEPENDS line
[19:54] <nbd> no
[19:54] <nbd> the references are ok
[19:55] <nbd> the packages that are referenced need to be updated
[19:55] <nbd> at least the tun one
[19:55] <nbd> ipv6 is done
[19:55] <Bartman007> ok
[20:20] <db90h> writing webif pages makes me suicidal
[20:20] <db90h> so, nbd, if i disappear, my death is on your hands!
[20:21] Action: Bartman007 runs kill -9 db90h
[21:25] <nbd> lol... x-wrt
[21:27] <Kaloz> db90h: fyi, we've already discussed both the whiterussian updates and the web-based firmware customization tool here way before
[21:27] <Kaloz> :p
[21:28] Action: [mbm] still confused about the sudden fork
[21:28] <[mbm]> but the "openwrt sucks and isn't maintained! i"m forking" seems to be the latest trend
[21:28] <db90h> what was the result of it?
[21:28] <db90h> all i've said is openwrt is awesome..
[21:29] <db90h> well, all i've said lately ;p
[21:29] <Kaloz> :p
[21:29] <[mbm]> the point is that whiterussian isn't dead, and you didn't even ask about that
[21:29] <[mbm]> you just took it upon yourself to say it's dead and put yourself in a position of leading a new project
[21:29] <db90h> i hear conflicting things every day it seems
[21:30] <[mbm]> the ironic thing is that you say this is for the cunnunuty but you didn't even attempt to ask what we're already doing
[21:30] <[mbm]> or work with us
[21:30] <db90h> i have been talking about this for days
[21:30] <db90h> ask groz
[21:30] <db90h> or check logs
[21:30] <[mbm]> up until a few minutes ago I had not heard "db90h is planning t fork openwrt into his oen firmware"
[21:30] <db90h> i don't mean for it to be offensive.. shit, if you are doing the same thing, then that's great
[21:31] <db90h> planned that its just a custom distribution of openwrt, openwrt plastered everywhere..not really a whole fork
[21:31] <db90h> or maybe it is technically a fork, i don't know
[21:32] <Kaloz> db90h: for real it should be an own package imho
[21:32] <db90h> yea, and i intend to do that
[21:32] <Kaloz> db90h: probably a metapackage that depends on some packages as well as your own stuff
[21:32] <db90h> yea
[21:32] <db90h> i thought openwrt was for building end user firmwares from...
[21:33] <db90h> why is it offensive when someone endeavors to do this?
[21:33] <Kaloz> db90h: but then what's the point to have a separate firmware? it's more sane to step up and offer those packages as part of openwrt
[21:33] <Kaloz> probably offering your help in maintaining them - we are in need of package maintainers anyways
[21:33] <[mbm]> point of openwrt was to create a modular firmware with the package system
[21:33] <[mbm]> not to start new forks at a whim
[21:34] <db90h> the reason to 'fork' was to have the freedom to be able to be free to make whatever code changes i feel like to facilitate my goals
[21:34] <db90h> and last i heard white russian wasn't going to have any new changes, just bug fixes.. i'll have to check logs for who i heard it from, one of the developers
[21:35] <Kaloz> db90h: http://openwrt.org .... le tme quote
[21:35] <Kaloz> "The latest release is (still) RC5; We're overdue for a new version very soon, but I probably should point out some major changes to the roadmap that are slowing things down:
[21:35] <Kaloz> - The WhiteRussian branch is getting stale
[21:35] <Kaloz> - The next WhiteRussian release will be RC6, and it will kick off 0.9 (not 1.0)
[21:35] <Kaloz> - The development branch, Kamikaze is getting a major overhaul called builroot-ng
[21:35] <Kaloz> - Parts of Kamikaze (including buildroot-ng) will then be merged into WhiteRussian for 1.0"
[21:36] <db90h> until Kamikaze is merged into White Russian (past RC6, I asked about RC6).. what will be the changes?
[21:37] <Kaloz> i ask it a different way. do you think you will reach your goals before we release rc6 and merge back the changes for 1.0?
[21:37] <db90h> look, you guys can do whatever you want.. its your attitudes that makes such actions necessary.. if i went through proper channels to make openwrt into what i wanted it to be, you guys would just strongly disagree with what i personally desired from it, and then i'd be stuck.. so here i am
[21:37] <db90h> i know i will reach most of my goals long before
[21:37] <db90h> if not all my goals
[21:37] <db90h> in case you hadn't noticed, buildroot-ng is amitious
[21:37] <db90h> i don't see it getting done anytime soon
[21:38] <db90h> you know though, you guys constantly put down everything that isn't of and for you, and in line with whatever you think is right.. i'm doing what i feel like doing and using openwrt as a base firmware, clearly labelling it as such everywhere.. so what is the damn problem?
[21:38] <db90h> i can't do what I want to with openwrt?
[21:38] <db90h> i didn't know that was part of the license.. i'll have to re-read it
[21:38] <[mbm]> I'm confused; this is somehow a result of our attitudes? as I said before you didn't even ask what our plans were, read what platns were posted or ask if you could have svn access to whiterussian
[21:39] <Kaloz> db90h: you got it totally wrong.. i say that all your goals could be reached with packages
[21:39] <Kaloz> db90h: and that way you would contribute to openwrt while staying with our community
[21:39] <db90h> most of them cna, yea.. and if it turns out i don't want to do any code changes to the bae firmware, then i'll jsut distribute packages.. where appropriate there will be packages available
[21:40] <db90h> Kaloz: it's hard for me to participate when you have people like mbm berating everyone who has any difference in opinion...
[21:40] <db90h> i'll do what i want, you guys do whatever you want
[21:40] <db90h> now leave me alone and quit being offended because someone uses openwrt
[21:41] <Kaloz> db90h: did i sound like being offended or did i give you names?
[21:41] <db90h> no, not you
[21:41] <db90h> mbm
[21:41] <db90h> i'm sorry for generalizing and attacking everyone
[21:41] <db90h> that was wrong.. mbm just makes me so damn mad
[21:42] <[mbm]> what's offensive is not that someone wants to use openwrt, it's the fact they think they need to take it to do so
[21:42] <Kaloz> well, i guess you can udnerstand his point of view as well.. the whole openwrt project started as a project to make the development centralized,
[21:42] <Kaloz> instead of 30 individuals with 30 added stuff and 30 projects
[21:42] <Kaloz> :)
[21:42] <[mbm]> db90h isn't the first person to do that
[21:42] <db90h> the reason people do that is because new ideas and directions are so strongly discouraged
[21:43] <db90h> you have a strict, rigorous design philosophy (often with good reason), and things outside this do not fit in...
[21:43] <[mbm]> db90h: you told me before that you finally understood openwrt's design goals, but you're still not quiet getting it
[21:44] <db90h> apparently not, i thought it was for use as a base firmware, much like the broadcom reference firmware
[21:44] <[mbm]> nope
[21:44] <db90h> well then how does one go about doing things that are in contrast to openwrt's design ideals and target audience?
[21:45] <db90h> if openwrt is targeted to developers, how does one create a firmware based on openwrt targeted at end users? sure, MOST of it can be accomplished with packages.. but not all (like micro optimizations)
[21:45] <[mbm]> really the worst part of this isn't the fact you seem to disagree with us, but the fact you're perpetuating this to a whole new crowd
[21:45] <[mbm]> instead of asking us
[21:45] <db90h> I like nvram
[21:45] <[mbm]> kaloz has already pointed out that you can accomplish all of this simply through the use of a package
[21:46] <db90h> so you guys are going to keep nvram around?
[21:46] <nbd> db90h: here's one example of what i'm currently working on in the whiterussian branch: support for umts/gprs
[21:46] <db90h> you guys are going for platform independence and more..
[21:46] <nbd> db90h: even with buildroot-ng it's possible to write config files that access nvram
[21:46] <db90h> your direction makes it obvious you are not interested in my particular goals
[21:46] <db90h> sure, but i only want to go to so much work... White Russian makes it easier
[21:46] <nbd> you can use something like this in /etc/config/network
[21:46] <nbd> config interface lan
[21:46] <[mbm]> db90h: there you go again making up statements from us that we didn't say
[21:46] <nbd> option ipaddr "$(nvram get lan_ipaddr)"
[21:47] <db90h> well, ok, thanks for the discussion.. now i'll continue my work
[21:47] <[mbm]> !?!?
[21:48] <db90h> if there isn't a demand for it, then it will be pointless and die quickly
[21:48] <[mbm]> what?!?
[21:48] <db90h> it will at least be useful to me.. as i don't want to wait 2 years for v1.0, which will be farther from my current interests than is White Russian RC5
[21:48] <[mbm]> <db90h> your direction makes it obvious you are not interested in my particular goals
[21:48] <db90h> yea
[21:48] <db90h> you're not interested in end user firmwares..
[21:48] <[mbm]> umm diagree.
[21:49] <[mbm]> you're just making up facts there
[21:49] <db90h> i tell you guys you should focus more on webif and you tell me it's for developres, not end users...
[21:49] <db90h> nbd said this
[21:49] <db90h> nbd, tell me you didn't tell me openwrt has a target audience of developers, not end users
[21:49] <nbd> i said openwrt's main focus is developers
[21:49] <[mbm]> no.. and if you'll calm down a minute I'll explain it
[21:50] <nbd> i didn't say end users were irrelevant
[21:50] <db90h> yea, there is always an explanation.. bottom line is with a few changes I can make White Russian into something more useful to end users NOW.. instead of waiting years
[21:50] <db90h> nbd: oh come on...
[21:50] <[mbm]> if you ask us a question like "will openwrt have a new webif" you'll probably get a response that the developers aren't interested in writing a webif
[21:50] <db90h> well instead of just not being irrelevant, they are my focus.. two divergent paths
[21:50] <[mbm]> but, that is not telling you they're stopping anyone else from doing that
[21:51] <[mbm]> likewise when we say something isn't on the todo list, that's just saying we have no time or intention of doing it
[21:51] <db90h> you would stop me.. because the moment I do anything remotely modern or you didn't like, you'd have me stop.. up until now you've been telling people NOT to work on the webif because it will be deprecated
[21:51] <[mbm]> it SHOULD NOT be taken as an OPENWRT DOESN'T WANT statement
[21:51] <nbd> [mbm]: i think it boils down to the fact that several people (not only db90h) don't want to spend the extra effort making something that meets our quality standards
[21:51] <db90h> i don't want to be subject to your approval or disapproval
[21:51] <nbd> [mbm]: because it's much easier to hack up something that is more user friendly if you don't care about the backend
[21:52] <db90h> that's right.. you have to compromise to get things done
[21:52] <[mbm]> I really don't mean to slam db90h for taking an interest in bringing whiterussian up to date
[21:52] <[mbm]> I'm just terribly insulted by the way he chose to do it
[21:53] <db90h> look, let me go get logs.. i've been talking about this for 2 days in here
[21:53] <db90h> u were never around, must be your sleeping hours
[21:53] <[mbm]> you've been talking about the webif and updating it
[21:53] <db90h> i've talked about which root to use
[21:53] <[mbm]> I've seen that
[21:53] <db90h> i asked two days which i should use.. groz and others tried to talk me into buildroot-ng, but i chose white russian
[21:53] <[mbm]> and I assumed that meant you planned on submitting those changes back
[21:53] <[mbm]> now I find out you plan on starting your own firmware around that
[21:54] <[mbm]> :/
[21:54] <db90h> i will happily submit them back, if you'll have them.. but i will not be subject to your approval or disapproval
[21:54] <[mbm]> you didn't even ask if we'll have them
[21:54] <[mbm]> you just took it upon yourself to say we won't
[21:54] <db90h> i assume you don't want them.. you put down most contributions from people
[21:55] <db90h> mostly with good reason .. you have a whole different focus
[21:55] <Kaloz> db90h: let me ask which ones
[21:55] <db90h> u know, i'm not going to care if you guys think my argument is bullshit.. or care to prove my point. Others share my views
[21:56] <[mbm]> that's because you're pushing those views as fact
[21:56] <Kaloz> db90h: and don't come up with wbx, as he simply took over kamikaze he was bitching about and never contributed to.. and this fact makes you understand our feelings a bit better
[21:56] <db90h> and, most importantly, i share my view.. and i'll do what i want.
[21:56] <db90h> i have nothing to prove to you
[21:56] <db90h> these are indeed my opinions
[21:56] <db90h> if you want to put an end to such endeavors, how about you do what i set out to do.. sometime this century
[21:57] <Kaloz> db90h: i don't want you to proove anything to me like i didn't attack you. i just asked about the things you say
[21:57] <db90h> and i'm not going to go look in the forums and see how many times you guys haven't added contributions.. look at all the webif pages that have been submitted, but never comitted.. for example
[21:57] <db90h> because webif has been deprecated, but not by anything that exists..
[21:58] <[mbm]> forget it, db90h has already made the opinion that we don't like him and is holding that opinion as fact
[21:58] <[mbm]> he won't even listen to us anymore
[21:58] <[mbm]> us telling him that we don't hate him isn't going to make any difference
[21:59] <[mbm]> he's just going to tell everyone that we hate him
[21:59] <nbd> db90h: so why not maintain your own webif package and send us patches for any base system changes you want to make?
[22:00] <nbd> db90h: instead of trying to make a new firmware project
[22:00] <[mbm]> we already asked him that, which only contributed to the "we hate db90h" campaign
[22:00] <[mbm]> it's mean to suggest new ideas to db90h
[22:00] <db90h> i'll submit them
[22:01] <[mbm]> that's imposing disaproval of his idea
[22:01] <db90h> but if you don't like them, that isn't going to stop me from redistributing them
[22:01] <[mbm]> see
[22:01] <nbd> db90h: nobody's trying to stop you from distributing your stuff
[22:01] <nbd> db90h: all we're trying to prevent is yet another community split
[22:02] <nbd> db90h: and instead of just assuming that we won't like your stuff, just try to send in patches and see what happens
[22:02] <nbd> db90h: i'll be happy to give you some feedback on your proposed changes
[22:02] <[mbm]> db90h: point blank, simple question: why aren't you trying to work with us?
[22:02] <db90h> i don't see how my goals and yours can ever be reconciled 100%, but every change I make I will submit.. I always planned to.. I NEVER planned to split the openwrt community, I am going towards a different audience (at least based on information you all told me up until today)
[22:03] <[mbm]> and the answer can't involve anything like "what you've done suggests" or "I think that"
[22:03] <db90h> why? because I don't share your goals..
[22:03] <nbd> db90h: the 'i want to do things differently' thing sounds so much like what wbx did
[22:03] <nbd> and look what happened
[22:03] <[mbm]> db90h: ok, what are our goals?
[22:04] <[mbm]> you have to know them if you're going to tell us you don't share those goals
[22:04] <db90h> yes, i will likely fail, and i seriously doubt anyone will take it seriously.. hell, i prominently describe it as an openwrt white russian based firmware, not a fork.. more like a custom distribution with very minor code changes
[22:04] <db90h> i thought it would help the openwrt community to be honest
[22:04] <[mbm]> I'm beting that what you claim is our goals really isn't
[22:05] <db90h> whatever your goals, they aren't mine, i know that for sure.. i am developing for one single platform, i want an nvram only based configured (fallback to config files), mandatory support for RO file systems...
[22:05] <db90h> you guys are doing something much more important and ambitious..
[22:06] <[mbm]> db90h: you've just described the whiterussian release
[22:06] <db90h> yes, exactly!
[22:06] <db90h> that's why i'm simply extending it...
[22:06] <db90h> as best I can tell you guys are depreacting the current white russian code base, not extending it
[22:06] <db90h> two different directions... how can they reconcile?
[22:07] <[mbm]> as developers we've mostly moved to ng
[22:07] <[mbm]> but that shouldn't be taken as a statement that we're trying to kill whiterussian
[22:08] <[mbm]> I'm sure if someone had come along with a set of patches for whiterussian that fixed a bug we'd have applied it
[22:08] <db90h> fixed a bug.. how about extended and enhanced it?
[22:08] <[mbm]> just last week florian added a new package to whiterussian that someone had sent in
[22:08] <db90h> how about defaulting little things like tcp established timeout to lower values?
[22:09] <nbd> db90h: i'm working on adding umts/gprs support to whiterussian. that counts as extending it as well, doesn't it?
[22:09] <db90h> I hope more than anything that anything actually useful that I do is put into White Russian and turned itno an offical release..
[22:09] <nbd> db90h: and even with buildroot-ng it's still possible to make the firmware use nvram and a read-only filesystem
[22:09] <db90h> it's possible, but more work..
[22:10] <nbd> db90h: that's why we want to make a 0.9 release before the switch
[22:10] <nbd> db90h: to leave -ng enough time to become stable enough
[22:10] <db90h> my mistake was thinking openwrt was a base firmware to build end users firmwares from.. i thought you guys would be happy
[22:10] <[mbm]> db90h: it is
[22:11] <[mbm]> but through packages
[22:11] <db90h> and what if a person desires minor code base changes?
[22:11] <[mbm]> there's absolutely no point in keeping your own copy of the base firmware
[22:11] <[mbm]> db90h: then submit a patch
[22:11] <db90h> and when you disagree with it?
[22:11] <nbd> then try to resolve the disagreement
[22:11] <[mbm]> you're asking that before you've even submitted a patch
[22:11] <db90h> .. and many are in stark constrast to the goals of openwrt..
[22:12] <[mbm]> you're being hostile before even giving us a chance to work with you
[22:12] Action: Exiles thinks a fork might be the best option
[22:12] <db90h> ok, here's one to lower the tcp established timeout default value to one hour.. can't get more minor than that.. shall you commit it?
[22:12] <nbd> Exiles: another one?
[22:12] <nbd> Exiles: we have enough of them already :)
[22:12] <[mbm]> db90h: probably; send me the patch
[22:12] <db90h> because i gave you this very patch when i first got into this stuff several months ago...
[22:12] <[mbm]> which ticket #?
[22:12] <db90h> and i was told "why can't you jsut use sysctl.conf"
[22:13] <db90h> in the forum
[22:13] <[mbm]> and?
[22:13] <db90h> and what?
[22:13] <db90h> if you thoguht it was a good idea, i'm sure you would have changed it
[22:13] <[mbm]> and did you submit a patch using sysctl.conf?
[22:13] <db90h> of course, we'd have to wait 6 months before a new release came.. but still
[22:14] <nbd> db90h: there are prerelease builds, which i'm occasionally updating
[22:14] <nbd> db90h: most of the time they're quite stable and usable
[22:14] <db90h> [mbm]: the suggestion was to modify sysctl.conf at runtime, not change its defaults in the build
[22:15] <[mbm]> db90h: think you misunderstood then
[22:15] <db90h> maybe i did.. but it's so simple u could have changed it if u thought it was a good idea
[22:15] <[mbm]> the post was telling you that patching the kernel was bad and that you should just change sysctl.conf in the build
[22:15] <db90h> or, i could change it and have myself, and all those who desire such a change, ready today...
[22:16] <Kaloz> [22:12:19] < db90h> ok, here's one to lower the tcp established timeout default value to one hour.. can't get more minor than that.. shall you commit it?
[22:16] <db90h> ok, *if* that was the case i mis-interpreted it.. at the time i was much less linux competent than i am now even
[22:16] <Kaloz> db90h: it's done already.....
[22:17] <db90h> good
[22:17] <Kaloz> db90h: https://dev.openwrt.org/changeset/4134
[22:17] <[mbm]> and I'm guessing that since I didn't jsut see a commit message, it had been done for months now
[22:18] <[mbm]> which pokes a major hole in db90h's argument
[22:18] <db90h> my argument is bolstered by the fact that there is no public build yet with this change...
[22:19] <nbd> wrong
[22:19] <nbd> http://downloads.openwrt.org/people/nbd/whiterussian/
[22:19] <db90h> if you guys were less ambitious and focused on improving what you already have done, then you'd have more frequent releases.. and the need for people to do their own would be diminished
[22:19] <db90h> nobody told me about any pre-release builds..
[22:19] <[mbm]> did you ask?
[22:19] <db90h> where do you inform the community about this?
[22:20] <nbd> i've been pasting the link a lot of times
[22:20] <nbd> you can find it in the forum, you can find it in the irc logs
[22:20] <nbd> whenever i make a new snapshot build for public testing, i put it there
[22:21] <[mbm]> so ...
[22:21] <[mbm]> umm, this is awkward ..
[22:21] <[mbm]> what was db90h's argument again?
[22:22] <db90h> what was your argument again?
[22:22] <db90h> i'm distributing images with changes i desire..
[22:22] <db90h> like it or not
[22:22] <[mbm]> my argument has been what it always has been; tha you don't need to fork the firmware, that you can write all you intended to write as a package and you can submit patches
[22:23] <[mbm]> we're not trying to stop you from distributing changes, we're trying to get you to work with us and stop you from starting an entirely new firmware
[22:23] <db90h> and i maintain that i do need to fork it because my ideals are different than yours (no matter what you say). Therefore, it's forked... in a very minor way with openwrt written all over it and advertised not as a fork but as an openwrt based firmware
[22:23] <[mbm]> !?
[22:24] <[mbm]> ok, let's go back to the earlier question, what are the goals and design ideals that you disagree with?
[22:24] <db90h> yes, nothing has changed.. i'll submit my changes to you, if you want to make them, then no reason for me to distribute my images when you start distributing yours with the changes
[22:24] <db90h> no point in continuing this argument..
[22:25] <[mbm]> ...
[22:25] <nbd> db90h: why are you avoiding mbm's question?
[22:25] <db90h> you want to go through this all over again?
[22:25] <[mbm]> sure, as many times as it takes
[22:25] <nbd> i'd like to hear the answer to this rather simple question
[22:26] <db90h> you guys will just make up an answer that suits your position
[22:26] <nbd> i don't think i spotted it anywhere in this rather lengthy discussion
[22:26] <db90h> like openwrt being for end users, lol
[22:26] <db90h> design goal #1 i disagree with: OpenWrt is targeted towards developers (even though end users aren't irrelevant)
[22:26] <[mbm]> wrong.
[22:27] <db90h> despite what you say, your actions prove it to be right
[22:27] <Exiles> Intergated web interface, and more usability would help
[22:27] <db90h> not everything can be done with packages
[22:27] <nbd> db90h: show us something that can't
[22:27] <Exiles> I don't wanna ssh/telnet in to change a config
[22:27] <Kaloz> Exiles: then work on it and submit patches
[22:27] <db90h> desing goal #2: openwrt is moving into more platform independence and the cost of platform dependent optimizations (sure, they can still be done, with more work)
[22:28] <groz> you cant work with packages if you are trying to fuss with a device that doesn't have enough flash to support jffs
[22:28] <nbd> db90h: whiterussian is still broadcom-only
[22:28] <[mbm]> it's what I've said earlier, when we say things like "we aren't targeting end users" it simply means that we as developers aren't working on it, not that we wouldn't appreciate someone else doing it for us
[22:28] <groz> and that's probably the fundamental issue
[22:28] <db90h> yes, and you guys are NOT continuing work on white russian in any SUBSTANTIAL sense..
[22:28] <groz> but you can do _anything_ with packages + imagebuilder
[22:28] <nbd> groz: i see this as 'does work with packages'
[22:29] <nbd> since they can (as you said) be included with the image builder
[22:29] <[mbm]> db90h: true, but how does that mean we don't want anyone else working on whiterussian?
[22:29] <db90h> you sure havne't expressed an interest in that before NOW
[22:29] <db90h> its as if this conversation is changing all your opinions
[22:29] <[mbm]> we have tons of stuff we'd love to do if only we had the time or the resources
[22:30] <Kaloz> db90h: honestly, imho i can speak for all of us developers
[22:30] <db90h> well you can commit my changes then.. in the meantime, i'll not have to wait for you or care if you approve or not
[22:30] <nbd> db90h: what changes?
[22:30] <Kaloz> db90h: we would be happy to see someone (even from us) working on whiterussian a lot
[22:30] <nbd> Kaloz: yeah
[22:30] <db90h> nbd: none yet, i'm wasting time arguing
[22:31] <[mbm]> db90h: so you're accusing us of not commiting changes that haven't even been written yet?
[22:31] <groz> kaloz, here's the krux, wr has limitations, and, those limitations effectively become show stoppers, and, from which ng was created
[22:31] <Kaloz> db90h: but we have real life where real work has to be done to get real money :) and openwrt comes after that, and it's a fact that we enjoy working on kamikaze way more
[22:32] Action: [mbm] would like to see one post, one official piece of documentation that says we don't want anyone to work on whiterussian
[22:32] <db90h> i'd like to see one that says you do
[22:32] <[mbm]> db90h is trying the "you didn't say it so it can't be true" approach, I'd like the contrapositive
[22:32] <db90h> everything says "work on buidlroot-ng, not white russian.."
[22:32] <[mbm]> prove to me it's false
[22:32] <db90h> i don't have to prove anything
[22:32] <db90h> i'm still doing what i want
[22:33] <[mbm]> and nobody is stopping you
[22:33] <db90h> ok, so that's that
[22:33] <[g2]> and [mbm] and others are doing what the want, working on -ng after 2.5+ years, what's wrong with that ?
[22:33] <db90h> now, like i said to start with, leave me alone.. i'm just trying to code and have freedom to do what i want
[22:33] <[g2]> s/the want/they want/
[22:34] <[mbm]> all I'm asking is that db90h works with us instead of making all these claims against us that we never said
[22:34] <[g2]> it's not like they're under contract or anything
[22:34] <[mbm]> and it's that part that I can't seem to get across
[22:34] <[g2]> [mbm] EXACTLY
[22:34] <[mbm]> no matter ow many of db90h's claims we poke holes in
[22:34] <[g2]> do what most open sourcer's do, post patches
[22:34] <db90h> should i care if you think you've poked holes in my claims?
[22:35] <db90h> my claims are based on your attitudes and actions, even if you want to deny it now..
[22:35] <[mbm]> db90h: well, it does effectively stop you from using them as arguments against us
[22:35] <db90h> i'm not 'against' you anyway.. never was..
[22:36] <[mbm]> you sure make it seem that way with your post, claiming that you can't work with us
[22:37] <[mbm]> and encouraging other users not to work with us either
[22:37] <[mbm]> or was that not your intention?
[22:41] <[mbm]> ...
[22:42] <db90h> its you who discourages people from working with you mbm...
[22:42] <db90h> and you'll never see this fact
[22:42] <nbd> [mbm]: anyways... umts support is working in my local tree. i rewrote most of the stuff from markus wigge's patch and i will make it an extra webif page instead of putting it directly on the wan page
[22:43] <[mbm]> db90h: so you're encouraging people not to work with me?
[22:45] <db90h> no, not at all.. you've done enough of that to leave a healthy pool of developers to work with me
[22:45] <[mbm]> what have I done?
[22:46] <db90h> be yourself i guess.. not sure.. all i know is how many people have felt turned away by openwrt
[22:46] <db90h> and most name you as the cause
[22:47] <[mbm]> I am the leader adn take responsibility, but I'd really like to know what I'm responsible for
[22:47] <nbd> db90h: so if you can't tell him what he does to discourage people, how do you know it's him doing it?
[22:47] <db90h> because these people tell me its him
[22:47] <db90h> or, rather, it's 90% him
[22:47] <[mbm]> since my goal is to get everyone working on one massive project instead of several smaller projects
[22:47] <db90h> it may be the whole project.. i don't know
[22:48] <db90h> well the best thing you could do is quit acting like a dictator and start being acceptive of people who want to do things differently, or move in different directions
[22:48] <nbd> so can you tell me who tell you it's him? or do they not want us to know?
[22:48] <db90h> instead you try to assimilate them
[22:48] <db90h> i am not going to give you names, no.. and this has been over a period of almost since i first came here
[22:49] <db90h> so there is a trend.. i don't care if you address whatever the problem is or not
[22:49] <[mbm]> so, everyone working on one large firmware is wrong?
[22:49] <[mbm]> what exactly am I being blamed for?
[22:49] <groz> i think the real issue is this
[22:50] <db90h> if that one large firmware encompasses everyone's vision (unlikely).. better to have everyone working on a small base firmware and then having lots of differnet firmwares with various purposes build on it
[22:50] <groz> efforts to try keep thing moving in a direction that dont break stuff
[22:50] <groz> piss folks off, cuz they make something quickly, dont look at the big picture
[22:50] <groz> and get pissed off because others reject it
[22:50] <db90h> right, that's why there is a conflict of interest
[22:50] <groz> because it breaks other things in the big picture
[22:50] <[mbm]> groz: hmm sounds likely
[22:50] <groz> and in most cases, probably all
[22:50] <db90h> you can't have it both ways...
[22:50] <db90h> you can't be all things to all people
[22:50] <groz> if you step back, and look at the big picture
[22:51] <groz> it can be done in a way that doesn't introduce the breaks
[22:51] <db90h> groz: the big picture isn't always important, depending on a persons goals
[22:51] <groz> but it's more work
[22:51] <groz> ahh, but db90
[22:51] <groz> to play in a big project, it IS important
[22:51] <groz> because the big picture IS the project
[22:51] <db90h> well i guess that's why i'm not.. again, the paths are divergent
[22:51] <groz> but that's the whole point, they dont have to be
[22:52] <groz> spend a little time, learn the ways to fit int he big picture, and still accomplish the goals
[22:52] <[mbm]> maybe there should be an official response to db90h's post with our statement
[22:52] <groz> and then it's benefit to all
[22:52] <db90h> no, they don't.. but i'm not going to work harder to fit into your design ideals when they aren't in my current interest
[22:52] <groz> well there you go
[22:52] <groz> you just said it yourself
[22:52] <db90h> good idea mbm, have at it
[22:52] <groz> you dont want to play in the big picture
[22:52] <groz> so, frankly, there's no point discussing it anymore
[22:52] <db90h> i said that long ago
[22:52] <groz> if you dont want to work as a part of a larger team
[22:53] <groz> then, there's no point to the discussion
[22:53] <db90h> exactly
[22:53] <db90h> i want to do my own thing, my own way, my own direction
[22:53] <groz> because the rest of us are not going to change our ideals just because you dont want to make the effort to be part of it
[22:53] <db90h> i don't want you to!
[22:53] <db90h> are you kidding me?!?
[22:53] <groz> but then i would suggest, you do what we did
[22:53] <groz> start by learning how to hack your way into a virgin wrt
[22:54] <groz> and then start fixing device drivers
[22:54] <db90h> why?
[22:54] <db90h> you've already done it..
[22:54] <groz> but you jsut said, you dont wanna be part of the overall big picture
[22:54] <groz> you dont want to build on what's there, you wanna go do your own thing
[22:54] <db90h> i do want to build on what's there
[22:54] <db90h> i didn't say that
[22:55] <db90h> i said i don't want to be constrained by the bigger picture
[22:55] <db90h> come on groz, u understand what the hell i'm talking a bout
[22:55] <groz> all you have to do, is build your stuff so that it goes into a base image during the image build process
[22:55] <groz> and you can end up as part of the big picture, in your tightly constrained environment
[22:55] <db90h> and mbm, you go say whatever the hell you want.. you'll just attract developers to me
[22:55] <nbd> nice metaphor. preferring a small picture, because being inside the big one is too small
[22:56] <groz> but, from my point of view, it becomes academic
[22:56] <db90h> not every change is going to work within your goals
[22:56] <groz> the wrt54 is going to end of life soon
[22:56] <db90h> i said this a million times
[22:56] <db90h> groz: yes, and I AM focusing on it..
[22:56] <db90h> groz: and you AREN'T
[22:56] <groz> and the 'wrt only' branches are going to go the way of the old project that used to focus on some obscure 3com router
[22:56] <groz> which long ago died
[22:56] <db90h> geez, you guys are just trying to be one big family and gang up on me.. you can't possible be so ignorant not to understand
[22:57] <db90h> groz: yes, so you admit you don't plan to work on wrt only branches anymore?
[22:57] <nbd> db90h: sorry, it's not only about you
[22:57] <groz> whereas the branches that support multiple hardware variants will be alive and well, maintianing the ability to target a wrt54 long after it's out of production
[22:57] <db90h> so it's ok if I do...
[22:57] <db90h> pfft, u guys are more childish than me even
[22:57] <db90h> ridiculous
[22:57] <db90h> groz: good.. but that's not my interest.. can I do what i want, is that ok?
[22:57] <groz> but in the meantime, i've got to maintain a setup that i have deployed, and
[22:57] <db90h> groz: u just summed up why i'm not interested in what you are..
[22:57] <groz> fitting in the big picture works a hell of a lot better for me
[22:58] <db90h> it's not needed for me
[22:58] <nbd> groz: let's stop. he's determined to waste his time
[22:58] <db90h> you guys are whack..
[22:58] <db90h> some sort of blind religion
[22:58] <nbd> groz: i don't think there's a way to stop him
[22:58] <groz> because in a few months, i wont be able to buy wrt54 anymore
[22:58] <groz> and i'll need to be on different hardware
[22:58] <db90h> my shit will be portable.. just not to the extend of ng
[22:58] <groz> but you can rest assured, i'll maintain wrt compatability, i have a couple thousand of them to support
[22:58] <db90h> look, i have different goals..
[22:59] <db90h> and I told YOU i wanted to create an end user firmware based on openwrt
[22:59] <db90h> which is what i'm doing
[22:59] <db90h> it's not a real fork
[22:59] <db90h> had nothing to say before
[22:59] <db90h> a few minor code changes is the extent of it
[22:59] <db90h> now when everyone is ganging up on me you join in?
[22:59] <db90h> i'm sure it makes you guys feel like a family
[22:59] <db90h> and have you even bothered to research my argument?
[23:00] <db90h> or did you just come in and start attacking me?
[23:00] <nbd> db90h: sorry, you misread our intentions completely
[23:00] <db90h> yea right nbd
[23:00] <db90h> you guys act like you are holy after the fact
[23:00] <db90h> deny you mean thtis
[23:00] <nbd> wrong again
[23:00] <db90h> or deny the firmware was not oriented towards end users
[23:00] <db90h> you are wrong
[23:00] <db90h> do whatever you want.. PLEASE publicize x-wrt, because i'm more motivated than ever
[23:00] <db90h> and there are LOTS of developers who don't like you guys
[23:01] <db90h> and would love to contribute towards the goals i am
[23:01] <db90h> i never meant to fork anything, i thought i was doing the right thing
[23:01] <db90h> but you guys turned it into some sort of war
[23:01] <groz> actually, i suspect there's lots of hacks that dont like us, because they cant hack something in and get tons of kudos, but, there's lots of serious embedded developers that just love the way openwrt is set up, because it makes the job of producing a purpose built device so trivial
[23:02] <db90h> groz: why do you insult people like that?
[23:02] <db90h> groz: you can't understand why a project would have divergent interests?
[23:02] <groz> i fall in the latter camp, not looking for 'recognition' or stuff, just looking for ways to get my jobs done easier
[23:02] <db90h> i'm not looking for recognition either.. believe it or not.. i'm looking to get things done on the WHite russian branch, which you guys AREN'T DOING
[23:03] <db90h> and i could care less what any of you think
[23:03] <groz> well, frankly, I haven't seen anything from you in the commit logs either
[23:03] <malbon> db90h: whatever you think of the OpenWrt devs, your post does sort of imply that OpenWrt is 'old hat' or inferior. How do you really expect people to react to that. This is a rhetorical question that need not be replied too.
[23:04] <nbd> sure, openwrt can't compete with magic pixie dust
[23:04] <[g2]> malbon OpenWrt is 'old hat' as in it'll be coming up on 3 years soon
[23:04] <Kaloz> nbd: we can, just we need to get some popping candy :)
[23:04] <Kaloz> nbd: popping candy can change everything :)
[23:04] <nbd> Kaloz: ah, right. let's release the koolaid branch as 1.0
[23:05] <db90h> see, you have no interest in that..
[23:05] <db90h> you make fun of it..
[23:05] <db90h> yet get made when people attempt it
[23:05] <db90h> what?!
[23:05] <db90h> err mad
[23:07] <nbd> sure, if you interpret what we say as jumping back and forth between having fun and being furiously mad, it might look confusing
[23:07] <db90h> lol
[23:07] <db90h> you have an answer for everything
[23:07] <nbd> unfortunately not
[23:07] <db90h> except why you feel threatened by me
[23:07] <nbd> how do you know i feel threatened by you?
[23:07] <db90h> because you are so upset about me building an openwrt based firmware
[23:08] <groz> nobody is upset abut 'building a firmware'
[23:08] <groz> that's what it's for
[23:08] <groz> it's the name calling and cat calls that piss folks off
[23:08] <db90h> groz: ...... NOPE, that's NOT what its for
[23:08] <db90h> groz: according to your fellow developers
[23:08] <db90h> groz: openwrt is an end user firmware
[23:08] <db90h> groz: didn't you know that?!?!?!
[23:08] <db90h> lol
[23:08] <nbd> db90h: how does me being upset about it mean that i feel threatened?
[23:09] <nbd> db90h: i don't see how those two are related
[23:09] <groz> go forth, make a package set that turns out of imagebuilder your 'firmware supreme'
[23:09] <groz> and if it's good, it'll even get included in the mainline as one of the image builds
[23:09] <db90h> good
[23:09] <db90h> i told you i'd submit patches.. if you guys were moving the same direction i was, then this wouldn't be necessary
[23:09] <groz> right beside pppoe and micro build
[23:10] <db90h> groz: why are you doing this? do you even know what my argument is?
[23:10] <groz> different directions are as simple as 'make menuconfig' and select packages
[23:10] <db90h> look, i hope you use any changes i do.. but i want to be free to do whatever i want.. period
[23:10] <db90h> now i quit wasting time discussing with you hard heads
[23:10] <db90h> and go visit the other developers you've turned away with your attitudes
[23:10] <db90h> despite the perfection you all claim
[23:11] <Bartman007> since when did anyone ever say openwrt was perfect?
[23:12] <db90h> you guys are funny
[23:12] <db90h> like one big gang of wolves, just gang up on whoever mbm attacks
[23:12] <nbd> haha
[23:12] <db90h> follow him like your leader, for he is God
[23:12] <db90h> i have a good point and you can't stand that
[23:12] <nbd> [mbm]: who are you going to attack next?
[23:12] <nbd> [mbm]: i want to make the first strike
[23:12] <malbon> db90h: your view of the world is skewed
[23:12] <groz> one of the wonderful things about an open sourc project
[23:12] <Bartman007> Iran!
[23:12] <groz> nobody is 'stuck' with a boss they cant get along with
[23:13] <groz> hell, i get into loggerheads with mbm regularily
[23:13] <groz> but
[23:13] <db90h> malbon: i went to create an openwrt based firmware for end users and get attacked for it...
[23:13] Action: nbd builds an altair and starts worshipping false prophets
[23:13] <groz> we find the middle ground, my goal normally 'get it done now', his 'watcdh the big picture'
[23:13] <db90h> you guys are whack.. you don't develop for end users, yet hate it if anyone else does
[23:13] <groz> we end up with 'better stuff' because of it
[23:13] <malbon> db90h: I refer you to my previous comment.
[23:13] <groz> but, if you cant learn to debate intelligently the rationale behind changes
[23:13] <nbd> db90h: you're right. we are whack (or at least i am)
[23:13] <groz> without getting all in a hissy
[23:13] <groz> it'll never happen
[23:13] <Bartman007> db90h: from what I can see (as a non-developer) is that you are being criticized for the method in which you are going about creating said firmware.
[23:14] <nbd> db90h: but obviously we're getting quite a few things done
[23:14] <nbd> db90h: :)
[23:14] <nbd> db90h: otherwise you wouldn't have chosen our code
[23:14] <db90h> yea
[23:14] <groz> bartman, it's actually academic, said 'end user' firmware has been talked about for months
[23:14] <groz> but
[23:14] <db90h> when did i say anything about not liking white russian?
[23:14] <groz> no place to download it from and install it yet
[23:14] <db90h> that's why i'm using it
[23:14] <db90h> i don't think your newer builds are in line with my goals
[23:14] <nbd> db90h: so one could say that there is a relationship between our attitude and the quality of our codebase
[23:15] <{Nico}> db90h: why don't you start consolidating those webif patches you mentionned and distribute an updated webif package?
[23:15] <db90h> yes, you are all wonderful
[23:15] <db90h> nico: i plan to
[23:15] <nbd> db90h: please accept us as your gods, because we would be very mad if you wouldn't
[23:15] <db90h> nico: for the last time.. but i don't want to be subject to your approval or disapproval and i want to make minor code base changes
[23:15] <{Nico}> why not start with that, what's the need to fork?
[23:15] <db90h> why you are so upset i'll never know...
[23:16] <nbd> {Nico}: he doesn't want to feel constrained by having to care about other people's plans
[23:16] <db90h> i never even meant to fork, just distribute custom images
[23:16] <db90h> nbd: exactly
[23:16] <db90h> why should I if my goals are different?
[23:16] <db90h> you guys think everyone should be the same
[23:16] <groz> well, why are you sitting here argueing about it then, why not get down to work, produce and distribute the images ?
[23:16] Action: nbd laughs at the fact that db90h still hasn't shown that he actually understands the goals of openwrt in depth
[23:17] <groz> it's obvious you dont want to make something that meets your goals at the same time it fits into the big picture
[23:17] <{Nico}> anyone knows what are those "minor code base changes" db90h is mentionning?
[23:17] <nbd> {Nico}: he doesn't have any yet
[23:17] <groz> altho, it was always my understanding, fromt he very beginning, creating customized images for specific purposes was the PRIMARY goal of openwrt
[23:17] <nbd> {Nico}: he's talking about hypothetical changes
[23:17] <malbon> nbd: actually I can understand that. It's a shame he's not understood the reason for going with buildroot-ng but it's not surprising.
[23:17] <groz> all the way back to the days we were first hacking into the box
[23:17] <nbd> malbon: yeah
[23:17] Action: Kaloz slaps Bartman007
[23:18] <Kaloz> Bartman007: forget iran, i don't want the ww3 to start
[23:18] <malbon> Hungary... :P
[23:18] <Kaloz> Bartman007: it will, but whatever, leave that for israel and bush..
[23:18] <Bartman007> db90h: J4k3 has had disagreements with the openwrt devs and doesn't like some of the code they've included, that why he maintains his own patchset. He doesn't say squat about the devs having slightly different plans they he does, just sticks with his patchset.
[23:18] <Kaloz> malbon: you would have no chance :P
[23:18] <Bartman007> malbon: can I claim Kaloz as a POW?
[23:19] <Kaloz> Bartman007: and he also submits fixes that fit into our tree and reports bugs :)
[23:19] <groz> take no prisoners, just shoot em all
[23:19] <Bartman007> Kaloz: yeah.
[23:19] <malbon> Person of Wealth? I don't know does he have money?
[23:19] <Kaloz> do i have money?
[23:19] <Kaloz> o.O
[23:20] Action: nbd puts on some military music and prepares for an invasion with the destination yet to be revealed
[23:20] <Kaloz> Bartman007: whatever, i'm happy.. the fact israel fell back saved the world from ww3.. .for now..
[23:21] <Bartman007> yeah, it really did, I was getting quite scared...
[23:21] Action: {Nico} put his "make love, not war" t-shirt up
[23:22] Action: groz puts on make install not war t-shirt
[23:22] <Bartman007> make: *** No rule to make target `love'. Stop.
[23:23] <groz> Bart, that's because the makefile was created by some geek in mom's basement
[23:23] <groz> you gotta add the wife patch first
[23:23] <groz> then it work
[23:23] <groz> the gf patch is also a cure
[23:23] <Bartman007> I hate the wife fork of the gf project...
[23:23] <Bartman007> so many dependancies
[23:23] <groz> ahh, but see, you dont get it
[23:23] <groz> you gotta maintain 2 branches, or 3
[23:23] <malbon> it's tempremental at best.
[23:24] <Bartman007> groz: ah, you like using the Mormon version of Xen?
[23:24] <groz> life is way easier if you keep a wife branch and a couple gf branches, but
[23:24] <groz> it's best to keep em in separate repositories
[23:25] <nbd> db90h is probably confused by now
[23:25] <Bartman007> btw, cvs is evil once I've started using svn. At work we are still using cvs, and I always get quite confused when svn update doesn't work ;-)
[23:37] <[mbm]> nbd: I know I am ..
[23:37] <groz> mbm, discussion of wife and gf and the various forks/branches thereof typically does confuse folks in developer channels on irc
[23:39] <[mbm]> ...
[23:39] <{Nico}> is it ok to add an EXTRA_LDFLAGS to Build/Compile/default (like EXTRA_CFLAGS)?
[23:40] <[mbm]> groz: now that you have attacked my statemnet, I have no recourse but to start a society that disclaims you as a member
[23:40] <groz> LOL
[23:41] <groz> wait another hour please, then i'll have my svn syncs all up to date
[23:41] <groz> then you can go do whatever you want
[23:41] <Bartman007> heh
[23:41] <[mbm]> db90h: could you use a new developer? these openwrt guys are pissing me off
[23:42] <Kaloz> groz: *hint* svn read access is granted to anyone
[23:42] <Kaloz> :)
[23:42] <groz> yes kaloz, but when i'm disclaimed, i'll probably be blocked
[23:42] <groz> and i dont know how to use a proxy to get past an ip block
[23:43] <Kaloz> come on, only spammers are stupid enough to be successfully blocked
[23:43] <Kaloz> :)
[23:43] <Bartman007> groz: tor ;-)
[23:43] <common> [g2]: i have a load patch for ixosal
[23:43] <[g2]> common really ?
[23:43] <common> yes
[23:43] <[g2]> which version
[23:43] <[g2]> and which endianess
[23:43] <groz> Kaloz, how do you think i make the 'real money' here ?
[23:44] <common> should be both, v2.1 afaik
[23:44] <db90h> you guys can't stand non-conformity, it's hillarious.. i have a different opinion and different idea and it offends you, whack
[23:44] <Kaloz> groz: no idea, i'm open to ideas :)
[23:44] <db90h> this is why nobody wants to participate with openwrt
[23:44] <db90h> now i leave you
[23:44] <groz> ok, kaloz, heres how you do it
[23:44] <groz> first, a custom wrt dist
[23:44] <[g2]> common where are the patchsets ? and how are the different from the nslu2-linux ones (if you know)
[23:44] <groz> second, get it onto a couple thousand wrts out there all on differetn connections
[23:44] <groz> third, rent your wrt farm to spammers
[23:45] <Kaloz> :)
[23:45] <common> [g2]: bug is you have a load of 1.0 in idle?
[23:45] <[g2]> the working patchsets I've got work for BE and LE on 3.4.4 and there's some error with 4.1.1 that I haven't looked at yet
[23:45] <Kaloz> groz: honestly that network couls be used to play tricks on mpaa/riaa instead :)
[23:45] <[g2]> common that's an old issue where where the driver looks like it's busy
[23:45] <common> yep
[23:45] <Bartman007> sablevm-classpath is erroring out with no rule to make target `all' complete output is found at http://www.padded-cell.net/openwrt/sablevm-classpath_error
[23:46] <[g2]> common that "bug" for me is with 2.6.16, gcc 4.1.1 npe v2.1 and it doesn't compile
[23:46] <Kaloz> Bartman007: oh, almost forgot to ask you, if you've booted that image or a recent svn on the gateway
[23:46] <[g2]> actually, there are missing references on the ixp400_eth
[23:47] <common> 2.6.17 br-ng npe 2.1 patched in, and it works
[23:47] <[g2]> common where are the patchsets ? I can diff/merge with the nslu2-linux ones
[23:47] <h3sp4wn> Kaloz: I have booted an image (on a gateway 7001) everything works except ethernet afaik
[23:47] <Bartman007> Kaloz: hehehe, I'll edit the usb serial device driver right now (my 7001 serial cable is using a weird usb device id)
[23:48] <common> [g2]: on my hdd
[23:48] <Kaloz> h3sp4wn: the second atheros gets the right irq then?
[23:48] <[g2]> common teaser :)
[23:48] <[g2]> don't make me come and get that hd ! :)
[23:49] <common> want them?
[23:49] <[g2]> common which compiler are you building with ?
[23:49] <[g2]> sure
[23:49] <h3sp4wn> Kaloz: They both appear (i.e you get ath0 and ath1)
[23:49] <Kaloz> [g2]: 4.0.3
[23:49] <Kaloz> h3sp4wn: could you do me a favour and try to scan with them?
[23:49] <[g2]> Kaloz thx, but I was asking common
[23:50] <Kaloz> [g2]: he uses -ng, so 4.0.3 :p
[23:50] <[g2]> ok so 4.0.3 plus whatever patchset common's got
[23:51] <[g2]> Kaloz and the open NPE patches probably are not in the -ng repo I'd guess
[23:51] <Kaloz> h3sp4wn: will you have some time to test it under load in the next few days?
[23:51] <Kaloz> [g2]: as they are far from being complete
[23:52] <[g2]> Kaloz nod, it's more of a question of parallel testing/development
[23:52] <Kaloz> [g2]: i'm waiting for the guy to fix the bugs i've reported
[23:52] <common> [g2]: buildroot ng default compiler
[23:52] <h3sp4wn> Kaloz: I will yes - but I would need an ethernet driver
[23:52] <Kaloz> h3sp4wn: probably i get some updated version of that driver, thatswhy i was asking :)
[23:52] <h3sp4wn> Kaloz: ath0 is on irq 28 ath1 is irq 0 (not getting any scan results with either in the default config)
[23:53] <common> athN are wifi0 childs
[23:53] <h3sp4wn> r4571
[23:53] <Kaloz> ath1 should have irq 27
[23:53] <h3sp4wn> wifi1: Atheros 5212: mem=0x48010000, irq=0
[23:53] <Kaloz> okay, i give you an image tomorrow imho.. just remind me if i forget it
[23:54] <h3sp4wn> Ok fine - I will remind you
[23:55] <h3sp4wn> common: ath1 is a child of wifi1
[23:55] <common> you got 2 cards?
[23:55] <h3sp4wn> gateway 7001 a/b/g
[23:55] <Kaloz> common: the 7001 b/g has 1, the a/b/g has 2 minipci slots
[23:56] <common> k
[23:56] <common> my wrv54 has 2 minipci slots too :)
[23:56] <Kaloz> common: i only have the b/g, so i could only test/fix that
[23:56] <common> both working
[23:56] <Kaloz> common: yeah, but these have it on the board by default :) i could attach the second on mine if i would have those magical soldering skills
[23:57] <common> http://flickr.com/photos/24017027@N00/212135037/ this solder was used
[23:58] <Bartman007> common: but why do that when 7001 a/b/g's cost $55 shipped :-)
[23:58] <Kaloz> common: i was talking about my the lack of soldering skills :)
[23:58] <common> Bartman007: where?
[23:58] <Bartman007> magic :-)
[23:58] <Bartman007> a liquidator
[23:58] <Bartman007> they cost $400 new from Gateway
[23:59] <Bartman007> I got mine and the one for h3sp4wn from a liquidator on eBay
[23:59] <h3sp4wn> Kaloz: No actually ath0 is working fine (just had to destroy the interface and create it in sta mode)
[23:59] <Kaloz> h3sp4wn: yeah, that one should work nicely.. i'll try to fix the other one as well for you in that image
[00:00] --- Mon Aug 21 2006