-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
vH39 #103
Comments
I would propose, we use gluon release v2023.2.4 as base. |
Getting a first build runningI am currently unsure which site branch to use. There's master-wireguard and stable-wireguard. The comparison of the two branches looks like this:
Due to the most recent commit on master-wireguard (fc04cd7), the mod 841 patch does not apply. If I revert fc04cd7, all patches apply to v2023.2.4. Most likely, this commit has refreshed the patches "too far" to the gluon main or so. v2023.2 introduced image-customization.lua. @Dark4MD copied an image-customization.lua from ffm in 1fa3283. Since this change is not in stable-wireguard so far, we can not build anything with v2023.2.* from it. To get a first test build running, I decided to:
|
Updating the stable-wireguard branchAccording to the README.md, we want to make releases from the stable-wireguard branch. Currently, this branch is one commit ahead and 5 commits behind master-wireguard (if we leave off the fc04cd7, which doesn't make sense for v2023.2.4):
Since the branches have diverged, I am currently unsure, what's the best way to update stable-wireguard?
@AiyionPrime Apart from that, I really like the idea of 0669244. To me, this seems to make perfectly sense to track the gluon version the patches should apply to. This should also land in master-wireguard somehow. |
this would be vH39, right? |
Do we need another fastd release?
Apart from this, I dislike the idea that vH38 could be "a newer release"
than e.g. vH43, if we build the next fastd release in two years after the
wireguard release vH43 was already released. What do you think?
|
Wir sollten weiterhin immmer zwei parallele Firmwares produzieren, um genau dieses Divergenzproblem zu umgehen. |
I asked around in the gluon irc if there is a reason to build from v2023.2.x instead of v2023.2.4. The answer was: There is freifunk-gluon/gluon@6f289cf. It fixes a respondd crash on some architectures (at least ARM64). |
What is done:
After this, we should be finished with rebasing and start a real build from the stable-wireguard branch. |
The libgen patch has been added in 26dac4a |
TODO-Liste
|
✅ Problem solved Currently, the ipq target does not seem to have a migration path: (from vH34:)
This issue is most likely related: freifunk-gluon/gluon#2666 UPDATE: This is not really an issue if autoupdater is used. The autoupdater calls sysupgrade with |
We could drop the check and evaluate whats missing. Knowing blocktrron though: For him this is a theoretically trivial matter. |
✅ Problem solved Netgear EX6150v2: UPDATE by @lemoer: http://firmware.ffh.zone/packages/gluon-ffh-vH39.pre/ipq40xx/generic is now valid. |
✅ Problem solved
UPDATE by @lemoer: The primary macs have changed once, since they were red out buggy. Now, today they are correct (already in older versions than vH39). |
✅ Problem solved Currently, I tried to build the pre-release vH39~3. However, now the ramips-m7621 target is missing. The build failes with:
The issue seem to be that we are trying to include this package from our site: Lines 147 to 153 in 26dac4a
In the first place, this only worked, since vH39-pre was built without BROKEN targets and the zyxel-nwa55axe is a broken device. UPDATE @lemoer: Resolved in 59bae52. I built vH39~4 based on this. |
Heyho,
let's setup a new (more current) wireguard build. This issue is to track process.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: