[Olsr-dev] NL80211 link quality patch and GIT repository

[Kees-Jan Hermans]

Is there a projection for a 'configure' like script in a roadmap of
sorts? Or is it completely out of the picture?

KJ

On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 07:58 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote:
> In this case we would have different plugins for the "wireless data
> gathering", one for each operation system.
> 
> If we get to this point, we might of course think about joining the
> plugins in a common name.
> 
> Henning
> 
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner
> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> >
> > Now that might be true, but it could change.
> >
> > .hc
> >
> > On 07/13/2012 05:07 PM, Henning Rogge wrote:
> >> A nl80211 based plugin would not be feasible on non linux-systems anyways.
> >>
> >> Henning
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner
> >> <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If you do end up adding libnl support, I would recommend using as
> >>> specific macros as possible.  It sounds like __linux__ is much too
> >>> general.  GNU/Linux and Android both define __linux__, for example, and
> >>> it really means "depends on the Linux kernel".  You might consider
> >>> __gnu_linux__ if libnl isn't feasible on Android.
> >>>
> >>> So for libnl, ideally there would be a macro for libnl, so people who
> >>> don't have the libnl headers but are building on GNU/Linux would not
> >>> have issues.
> >>>
> >>> .hc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 07/09/2012 03:49 PM, Kees-Jan Hermans wrote:
> >>>> Well,
> >>>>
> >>>> to be precise, I encountered two recent versions of Debian where one
> >>>> would have all userland wireless functionality in libnl, and it would
> >>>> have API-version #defines (CONFIG_LIBNL20 and CONFIG_LIBNL30), and one
> >>>> that had that library completely split up (in libnl, libnl-nf,
> >>>> libnl-cli, libnl-route, libnl-genl), and none of those #defines. So I
> >>>> thought, I'd approach this in the following manner:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Our patch currently only works on Linux (so WIN32 and BSD would have
> >>>> to have some elegant message saying 'Sorry, you can't use this right
> >>>> now' - this is going to be solved in the code by a '#ifdef __linux__',
> >>>> but in the makefile I'd need to be able to switch on the fact that we're
> >>>> using Linux or not (I think I've seen a few instances of that in the
> >>>> Makefiles already), in order to determine whether or not it's going to
> >>>> run the script at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Upon discovery of a few Linux NL-quirks by the script, either a
> >>>> Makefile inclusion file is produced, or the present Makefile is altered,
> >>>> whichever has your preference (the former has the advantage that running
> >>>> the script doesn't alter the GIT state of the present Makefile).
> >>>>
> >>>> In the absence of a proper 'configure' script, this is the only elegant
> >>>> solution I could think of.
> >>>>
> >>>> KJ
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 15:17 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> >>>>> Sure, that's possible with make, which headers and functions are you talking about?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My guess is that most likely, you'll want to use #ifdef macros.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .hc
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Kees-Jan Hermans wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ok, thanks. Turns out that what I thought was new, was old, and vice
> >>>>>> versa. Spent some of the weekend adapting a patch against the old code.
> >>>>>> My mistake I suppose - teach me the basics of this here project ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyway, some patching up was necessary anyhow (mostly, unfortunately,
> >>>>>> due to the fact that there is no stable nl80211 userland API on Linux,
> >>>>>> differing wildly among distributions and no real sure way to know what
> >>>>>> version you're dealing with on the basis of #defines and whatnot)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which leads me to another question: is there something in the course of
> >>>>>> 'make' that I could use to create a 'configure' like situation
> >>>>>> (discovery of certain uses of header files, function prototypes and
> >>>>>> defines) ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sincerely,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> KJ
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 16:49 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 07/09/2012 04:45 PM, Kees-Jan Hermans wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've been working on renewing the patch for using wireless lan metrics
> >>>>>>>> as part of the link quality cost calculation, but I've been a bit
> >>>>>>>> confused as to how the repository works; it seems that the default
> >>>>>>>> 'master' branch is old, and the 'stable' branch is where everyone is
> >>>>>>>> committing their new code against. Is that correct? I'm just asking,
> >>>>>>>> because in other places, such nomenclature would suggest a different,
> >>>>>>>> and opposite, function.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, thats right.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We were also in the process of discussing a change in the "where to
> >>>>>>> commit and how to do it" policy here when I got hit by an "eat up a
> >>>>>>> whole week of time" thing...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hope we will restart the discussion soon and sort it out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Henning
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Olsr-dev mailing list
> >>>>>> (spam-protected)
> >>>>>> https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Olsr-dev mailing list
> >>> (spam-protected)
> >>> https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steven Hawkings about cosmic inflation: "An increase of billions of
> billions of percent in a tiny fraction of a second. Of course, that
> was before the present government."
>