I am a new user in OpenWrt (this is my first post) and most functions are disabled at my Trust Level 0. Regarding WAVLINK WL-WN531A6 (QUANTUM D6), the associated webpage with installation instructions needs some updates:
In particular, it appears that the supplied .bin images do not contain the LuCI interface, therefore it is not possible to access the system via http://192.168.1.1 as indicated - access is only possible via SSH. To get web access, the user should connect the WAVLINK's WAN port to a router that provides internet, ssh to 192.168.1.1. loggin in as root (no password required) and issuing at the CLI two commands:
opkg install luci
Being new to OpenWrt, it took me a while worrying that I have bricked the router and multiple attempts to install the firmware, before understanding that the system works fine, it just does not accept http connections.
Of course, a better solution would be to modify the supplied bin files to have LuCI preinstalled.
It appears that tmomas is responsible (or was involved) in maintaining the router's webpage. Tmomas, please edit the webpage if you'd like.
Well, I never said that the error is in the provided image files and I understand the reasons for wanting to provide a lean and minimal package to begin with. In a TL-WD10043ND that I flashed OpenWrt a few weeks ago (my first OpenWrt installation), the provided images included LuCI interface, which, as a newbie in OpernWrt, I find quite helpful and made me believe (erroneously) that this would be the minimum to expect after the flashing.
In this case, the problem is in the webpage that states that you can manage the router using the web interface right after the flashing - this is simply not true and the webpage needs to be corrected. For a new user this can be quite frustrating, as after the flash, the web access to the router does not work as indicated and the most likely conclusion is that the flash process was erroneously executed. I understand now that the "snapshot images" never come with the web UI, however a new user that is not experienced with the term will probably not have this in mind when debugging what is/went wrong after the flashing.
Your device is not supported by an official, stable release yet. stable releases (e.g. 19.07.7) ship with luci, the webinterface, by default.
So while this device hasn't made it into a stable release yet, support for it has recently (as in, after july 2019, the cut-off for the current stable release) into the development branch. The build-infrastructure now happens to build semi-official and semi-supported snapshot images without luci on a ~daily basis. While you are invited to use them, they are not a stable release and come with known caveats (no webinterface pre-installed, but it's possible to install it over ssh, using opkg, at runtime, kmods and other packages will get out of sync, you may have to sysupgrade to a new, current snapshot, before you are able to install further packages and the snapshot mirrors a random/ unchecked/ untested development state; the wiki covers this in more detail). But by taking the opportunity of using a development snapshot 'ahead of time' for official/ stable device support, you will have to accept the afforementioned caveats XOR wait for officially blessed/ stable release images containing the full feature set, including the webinterface l.
What you should not do, is complaining about the nature of snapshot builds, their specifics are documented and the wiki/ device pages distinguish clearly between links for release- and snapshot builds - your alternative simply is not to use them and wait for a stable release containing support for your device.
I made clear not only in my first message but in the second one that the purpose of my message is to report that the WEBPAGE has an error and somebody experienced (I consider myself new to edit it myself without introducing additional errors) should probably make this small correction. I never complained for the fact that the images do not contain LuCI (I just mentioned that if they did, it will be better) - I even added that I understand that there are reasons why one prefers a minimal image. If the webpage was corrected, this would make life easier for other inexperienced users that may face the same problem. On the other hand, if you believe that the way it is, it is ok, I do not complain - after all, I have found for my needs how to get over it, it is to save other people from this problem that this thread was initiated.
I will not answer any other message in this regard as I believe that there is a clear difference between complaining for an inaccurate webpage and the lack of web interface in the image files - I do not see why you keep misinterpreting my intentions.
Hi Tmomas, I tried both the OEM web interface and u-boot TFTP method (as I could not get it to work) and it appeared that in the OEM web interface method, step 5 did not work either - i.e., I could not connect to http://192.168.1.1. My understanding is that the initramfs-kernel.bin image does not contain any web interface either (somebody accustomed to the variants of the different packages will probably be in position to verify this) - this should be corrected, too, if you'd like.