26 (edited by thepeople 2006-11-09 15:13:02)

Re: whiterussian rc6

The routed (p2p) wds webif page won't make it for milestone 2 but should be done in the near future. If you need routed wds the wiki has information on how to set it up.

Re: whiterussian rc6

but ... anyone can tell me why , the dev team not release a WHITERUSSIAN RC6 with WDS/p2p support ? any reason. ?

p2p is bad for wds ?

thanks

You know where you are
You're in the jungle baby
You're gonna die

28

Re: whiterussian rc6

WDS is by definition always P2P...

Re: whiterussian rc6

Hi,

upgraded yesterday without any problems. Its been running for 12h now and everythings fine. webif^2 is a must, its awesome cool

For everyone who doesnt know where to find "unofficial" packages like joe, vnstat etc i suggest visiting http://www.ipkg.be/ because i found everything, that i was looking for, there.

Re: whiterussian rc6

Hmm nice work guy's..!

i like to state that a WAP54G-V3-EU finally works out of the box with RC6 !!

(but you might consider altering a few things like firewall ect for a wap)

Cheers dudez..

Re: whiterussian rc6

I have several wrt54GL boxes with micro RC5, which I am using  as firewalls and VPN gateways (mainly shorewall and openvpn - no wireless) .
Up until now, I never had any problem at all.
Why should I upgrade to RC6?

PS: Developers, thank you for working on openWRT!
I really respect your perfectionism.

32

Re: whiterussian rc6

does this release work also for WRT54G V4?

as i can see this download release is for V4: http://downloads.openwrt.org/whiterussian/rc6/bin/openwrt-wrt54g-squashfs.bin

and this is for WRT54GSv4: http://downloads.openwrt.org/whiterussian/rc6/bin/openwrt-wrt54gs_v4-squashfs.bin

so i was wondering which one i download & upgrade?

thanks!
big_smile

33 (edited by simba87 2006-11-15 00:12:27)

Re: whiterussian rc6

mbm wrote:

New diag module
This is what controlls the leds and the buttons; now leds are /proc/diag/led and buttons trigger hotplug scripts in /etc/hotplug.d/button. (Now you can also press any button at startup to enter failsafe mode)

hi... before flashing to the new version i would like to have some information
1. is it possible to use the compiled mmc.o module from RC5? or do i have to use a new one? this module uses the diag, doesn' it?
2. i already posted that in another thread, but didn't get an answer. is there perhaps any way to use the white led (that is not used by the mmc-card) for static purposes with the new diag module? because in RC5 the led turns off when accessing the mmc...

and if it should be my fault that i don't get answers on my posts please let me know why! and thanks for your help, i would really appreciate it smile

EDIT forgot to mention, that i have an WRT54G v3.1, so I use GPIO 3, 4, 5 & 7

Re: whiterussian rc6

I was previously running OpenWRT 0.5 on one of my wrt54gs v4.0 devices. Something went wrong after upgrading, finally I was able to revert back to linksys's original firmware, after re-upgrade to 0.6 I noticed once again that WIRED wasn't working. I did this something like 5 times and everytime, same symptons, finally I re-flashed linksys original and installed pre-rc6 and after that I was able to upgrade to 0.6 with working wired interface.

I don't know what went wrong, currently I can verify that it works and it did work on 2 other wrt54gs v4.0's. On these 2 other units I didn't have any problems upgrading.

Re: whiterussian rc6

mbm wrote:

NOTE: pppoe users - be sure to use the correct image

Is there anything more than the ppp package (and dependencies of course) in the PPPoE image?

Expert Opinions $10 ... I Shut Up $20

36 (edited by andrewjorgensen 2006-11-15 22:22:31)

Re: whiterussian rc6

Why was the firewall page removed from webif in RC6?

And before someone says "use webif^2" let me say that I prefer the original webif, it's style guidelines, it's code guidelines, and the overall care taken to make it a quality product, not just a whizbang-cool product.  I really liked the firewall page, it was simple and did what it was supposed to do.  I'm not as interested in if it's coming back as I am in the rationale for it's removal.

37 (edited by db90h 2006-12-02 19:39:42)

Re: whiterussian rc6

andrewjorgensen wrote:

Why was the firewall page removed from webif in RC6?

And before someone says "use webif^2" let me say that I prefer the original webif, it's style guidelines, it's code guidelines, and the overall care taken to make it a quality product, not just a whizbang-cool product.  I really liked the firewall page, it was simple and did what it was supposed to do.  I'm not as interested in why it's gone as I am in the rationale for it's removal.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Your post is extremely offensive. [EDIT: removed my offensive language. I apologize for this behavior of mine]

38 (edited by andrewjorgensen 2006-11-15 22:00:12)

Re: whiterussian rc6

db90h wrote:
andrewjorgensen wrote:

Why was the firewall page removed from webif in RC6?

And before someone says "use webif^2" let me say that I prefer the original webif, it's style guidelines, it's code guidelines, and the overall care taken to make it a quality product, not just a whizbang-cool product.  I really liked the firewall page, it was simple and did what it was supposed to do.  I'm not as interested in why it's gone as I am in the rationale for it's removal.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Your post is extremely offensive. In short, you are an asshole.

I didn't mean to offend you, db90h.  "whizbang-cool" was a complement, sincerely.  No need to be upset.  mDNS is whizbang-cool, for instance.  I love mDNS.  Xgl is whizbang-cool.  I wish it worked on my system.  Frankly OpenWRT is whizbang-cool if you ask me.  My preferences are purely technical and based on my experiences as a system-administrator and an engineer.  You might also say that they're not based on my experience as an end-user, which means I'm not in your target audience.  There's nothing wrong with that.

I am sad though that you felt you needed to branch webif in order to put all that coolness into it.  webif would probably be a lot cooler in RC6 if you and the OpenWRT devs had buried the hatchet and learned to work together.  The firewall page would probably still be there, for instance.

Speaking of which, back to my question:

What are the technical reasons behind the removal of the firewall page?  I'm not offended that it's gone (I don't get emotional about software), I'm just eager to know what's going on and everywhere I search all I find is that webif^2 still has it (which is good, but it doesn't answer my question).

Awesome release (er, release candidate), by the way.  I especially like mini_fo -- way better than wholesale jffs2 IMHO.

The new diag stuff is also whizbang-cool.  I can't wait to figure out what I want that silly cisco button to do.  I remember when I bought the device and that button did nothing at all, I thought "WTF?"  Then a few months later an updated firmware made it do some wacky security lock-down that I couldn't never figure out how to use and I was thinking "WTF?" all over again.  Now at least I can make it do something reasonable.

39 (edited by db90h 2006-11-15 22:57:50)

Re: whiterussian rc6

Sorry for calling you names. I got emotional because you struck a chord with a trend in the OpenWrt community that I am always arguing about.

The fact is that no software is perfect. At some point you have to compromise between perfection and pragmatism. There is only so much time in the world, and sitting around critcizing what can be done better without offering up a better solution is counter-productive. You'll notice this trend often in the forums - a person contributes something, only to be discouraged because people point out how it could be done better. In the end, nothing gets done and the contribution is abandoned.

I have a different viewpoint.. I believe that *almost* ANY solution should be accepted UNTIL a better solution is available. This keeps things moving forward in a productive way that solves real problems, today. Now, this doesn't mean I support throwing in things that compromise the stability or security of the system as a whole in major ways -- at least not without adding obvious disclaimers to those components wink.

But, saying this makes me sound like our stuff is of inferior quality, which simply is NOT true. I am explaining why I fight against anyone who 'disses' something else without offering up anything better. As thepeople said, our webif is of very good quality, and gets better every day. It is not 'crap' code and we've worked hard to make sure its not. I thought you assumed it must be of inferior quality because it adds 'whizbang' features. One good thing about this trend in OpenWrt to demand perfectionism to a fault is that we felt more compelled than ever to make sure our code was solid. And it is. I encourage people who think our webif is of inferior quality to actually LOOK at the code first, then if they still think they can do it better, please DO IT BETTER -- don't just say it can be done better.

What are the technical reasons behind the removal of the firewall page?  I'm not offended that it's gone (I don't get emotional about software), I'm just eager to know what's going on and everywhere I search all I find is that webif^2 still has it (which is good, but it doesn't answer my question).

The answer is actually in line with the above... (read it): The firewall page was removed because it was imperfect. I am not sure what the imperfections are as it's always worked ok for me. So, now instead of a solution that works 98% of the time, there is no solution. This is EXACTLY the difference in philosophy I was talking about. Which philosophy is better? Who knows..

40 (edited by andrewjorgensen 2006-11-16 00:03:03)

Re: whiterussian rc6

db90h wrote:

Sorry for calling you names. I got emotional because you struck a chord with a trend in the OpenWrt community that I am always arguing about.

I can understand that now that I've read the reasons behind the emotion.  You actually have a very good point about the trade-offs.

db90h wrote:

I have a different viewpoint.. I believe that *almost* ANY solution should be accepted UNTIL a better solution is available. This keeps things moving forward in a productive way that solves real problems, today. Now, this doesn't mean I support throwing in things that compromise the stability or security of the system as a whole in major ways -- at least not without adding obvious disclaimers to those components wink.

I can't say I entirely agree but this is very persuasive.  There's certainly a place and a need for this approach.  You've actually changed my mind about your project.  I will still use the old webif and hope it will continue to improve but I'll also wish you well in your efforts and hope that the old project can benefit from what you're doing.

db90h wrote:

What are the technical reasons behind the removal of the firewall page?  I'm not offended that it's gone (I don't get emotional about software), I'm just eager to know what's going on and everywhere I search all I find is that webif^2 still has it (which is good, but it doesn't answer my question).

The answer is actually in line with the above... (read it): The firewall page was removed because it was imperfect. I am not sure what the imperfections are as it's always worked ok for me. So, now instead of a solution that works 98% of the time, there is no solution. This is EXACTLY the difference in philosophy I was talking about. Which philosophy is better? Who knows..

Dang, that explanation makes perfect sense and explains very well why you've found it difficult to work with the OpenWRT devs (assuming it's true, which sounds very likely).  I still feel like I agree somewhat more with them than with you (I've got my systems administrator hat on) but at least the world makes sense now.

Re: whiterussian rc6

andrewjorgensen wrote:

Why was the firewall page removed from webif in RC6?

In answer to my own question:

nbd: remove the crappy firewall page - no time to get it fixed before rc6 (https://dev.openwrt.org/changeset/4937)

42

Re: whiterussian rc6

*sigh*

There is no front line support; any problems result in a barrage of questions directly to the developers. I can't tell you how annoying it is to know something is broken and to be constantly reminded of it. We have documentation, we have faqs and forums and yet we're constantly answering the same questions repeatedly.

If we're perfectionists it's only because we're sick of the complaints.

Re: whiterussian rc6

simba87 wrote:
mbm wrote:

New diag module
This is what controlls the leds and the buttons; now leds are /proc/diag/led and buttons trigger hotplug scripts in /etc/hotplug.d/button. (Now you can also press any button at startup to enter failsafe mode)

hi... before flashing to the new version i would like to have some information
1. is it possible to use the compiled mmc.o module from RC5? or do i have to use a new one? this module uses the diag, doesn' it?
2. i already posted that in another thread, but didn't get an answer. is there perhaps any way to use the white led (that is not used by the mmc-card) for static purposes with the new diag module? because in RC5 the led turns off when accessing the mmc...

and if it should be my fault that i don't get answers on my posts please let me know why! and thanks for your help, i would really appreciate it smile

EDIT forgot to mention, that i have an WRT54G v3.1, so I use GPIO 3, 4, 5 & 7

ok.. i see it has to be my fault. why is it, that only people offending something or screaming loudly get an answer? i think that's how society works.
sorry for spam sad

Re: whiterussian rc6

Cannot get the toolchain to compile an RC6 image that works on a wrt54gl

Have applied svn checkout of whiterussian of Nov 18 2006, in a Fedora core 6 environment.
Produced are configuration menu, toolchain, and after 'make' all the images in /bin without errors.
But after flashing the wrt54gl is not pingable; power light steady on, dmz light off, wlan light steady on, connected lan light steady on.
Can get into the box only in failsafe mode.
Any ideas what might be the cause or how to collect further clues ? The precompiled RC6 from the OpenWrt site works OK, but would like to make my own flavours using the toolchain. The RC5 toolchain did produce working code.

When I keep pinging 192.168.1.1 from the moment of flashing with tftp there is a brief moment of the box replying, appr. 1 s, just before it reaching above described stationary situation without replies. While the light is flashing from the moment of transfer there are no ping replies.

45

Re: whiterussian rc6

run nvram-clean.sh and make a nvram dump

46 (edited by doddel 2006-11-19 01:18:02)

Re: whiterussian rc6

Tnx nbd.
Do you mean nvram dump in failsafe mode (have no access in normal mode without soldering) ? Nvram-clean in failsafe makes no difference before/after; nvram reads:
aa0=3
ag0=0x02
boardflags2=0
boardflags=0x2558
boardnum=42
boardrev=0x10
boardtype=0x0467
boot_ver=v3.7
boot_wait=on
bootnv_ver=4
ccode=0
cctl=0
clkfreq=200
dl_ram_addr=a0001000
eou_device_id=R3ZPPGIT
eou_private_key=<<some long string>>
eou_public_key=<<some long string>>
et0macaddr=00:18:39:CE:B6:57
et0mdcport=0
et0phyaddr=30
il0macaddr=00:90:4c:5f:00:2a
lan_ipaddr=192.168.1.1
lan_netmask=255.255.255.0
opo=0x02
os_flash_addr=bfc40000
os_ram_addr=80001000
pa0b0=0x168b
pa0b1=0xfabf
pa0b2=0xfeaf
pa0itssit=62
pa0maxpwr=0x4e
pmon_ver=CFE 3.91.37.0
scratch=a0180000
sdram_config=0x0062
sdram_init=0x010b
sdram_ncdl=0xfe0008
sdram_refresh=0x0000
sromrev=2
vlan0hwname=et0
vlan0ports=3 2 1 0 5*
vlan1hwname=et0
vlan1ports=4 5
watchdog=5000
wl0gpio2=0
wl0gpio3=0
wl0id=0x4320

Other weard behaviour: issuing 'reboot' in failsafe has no effect, cursor returns after split second.

47

Re: whiterussian rc6

hmm... looks normal. please give me a copy of the image that you compiled.

Re: whiterussian rc6

OK
http://www.dorpstraat.com/OpenWrt/sq2.bin
(it has openssh i.s.o. dropbear)

49

Re: whiterussian rc6

Seems like you accidentally disabled the switch drivers.

Re: whiterussian rc6

tnx nbd !
putting mod-switch in 'Kernel Configuration / Device Support' from M to * made the box come to life.
Was not aware to have changed it settting; one wonders whether it would not be better to make it a mandatory 'on' as a box without a working switch is of little use. Or are there box flavours that don't need these  drivers ?