[Olsr-dev] Problem with compile olsrd on SDK AirmaxOS

[Conrad Lara]

Ultimately I'm a fan of a published   minimum system requirements.

I don't have an opinion on what kernel level is supported, but whatever it is any code coming in should be required to run on the minimum supported version.

This applies equally to OLSRD and OLSRD2.  Only way to do that is to set a policy (again haven't seen one published in any readme)

This also equally applies to any code that may be BSD based, MAC based, etc.

After that it's a different subject of do you bother to accept code for older versions. I would generally say not to as at that point your adding extra code for an unsupported system base and it's that persons responsibility who's compiling for an unsupported install base to make it work.



Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 10, 2014, at 2:55 AM, Ferry Huberts <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> 
> I can say that I have zero interest in supporting 2.4 kernels.
> Personally I don't even care about 2.6 but I can see that there are people out there using it.
> 
> AFAIC any 2.4 maintenance has to be done by someone else.
> And any patches to that purpose must be non-invasive and well documented :-)
> 
> 
> I'm in the process of adding the last big piece to olsrd v1; the missing piece of the multi-smart-gateway functionality.
> After that olsrd will go into maintenance mode.
> 
> New development should (probably) be done on olsrd v2.
> 
> 
>> On 10/11/14 11:37, Conrad Lara wrote:
>> Just tested on 0.6.7 and 0.6.7.1 patch supplied allows full compile under a OpenWRT 7.09 with a 2.4x series kernel.
>> 
>> 
>> Bigger question is:
>> Should a system requirement exist that it must be a minimal 2.6 kernel? Sounds like you would be in favor of such a requirement based on your earlier comment about not usually supporting something as old as 2.4.
>> 
>> Otherwise It would seem to me reports are legitimate to make and code being submitted for new fixes should be making sure to go back to 2.4 kernel for testing.
>> 
>> In my case I just figured it was old enough of an operating system and wasn't going to trouble the dev here but I never did see a system requirement list posted anywhere unless I missed it ?
>> 
>> Side note:
>> A Reason for the 2.4 kernel limit on Nanostations is that Ubiquiti has pulled their SDK, as I understand it they even withdrew the right to use it any more. They are not updating it so users trying to work with the official OS are kind of stuck.
>> 
>> They still publish the required GPL code(to my knowledge) but w/o the same version kernel you can't load the binary blob drivers etc if you want to keep AirOS.
>> 
>> Not an issue for me as I flash all mine to openwrt, but is a tad annoyance for those who enjoyed the AirOS.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>>> On Nov 10, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Henning Rogge <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:07 PM,  <(spam-protected)> wrote:
>>>> Sorry for asking this but I have use (and others ) Nanostation 2 which we
>>>> can use only old kernel 2.4.x.
>>> 
>>> I think OpenWRT Attitude Adjustment should run on a 4MB flash device.
>>> 
>>> In fact I have used kernel 2.6 on the original (pre 802.11n) Ubiquiti hardware.
>>> 
>>> What do you think of a deal... you start looking for the places where
>>> you get errors (and eliminate them by commenting them out) and post
>>> them here and I look if we can do an easy patch for them that wont
>>> break too much for you.
>>> 
>>> Henning Rogge
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Olsr-dev mailing list
>>> (spam-protected)
>>> https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
> 
> -- 
> Ferry Huberts