Bekijk de volledige versie : Some packages I compiled
Jean-Fabrice
18-03-2005, 22:30
Hi,
Here is my ipkg distribution point :
http://www.bobo-rousselin.com/wl/ipkg/
Add
src wl500g-jf http://www.bobo-rousselin.com/wl/ipkg
to your /opt/ipkg.conf and run
ipkg update
to get the list of my packages.
JF
Here is my ipkg distribution point :
http://www.bobo-rousselin.com/wl/ipkg/
Excellent. Did you use the Unslung packages, or some other source? Since a lot of those packages are GPL, then you should really have the source and Makefiles published somewhere too. If they are just the Unslung packages, then just point people to the Unslung CVS module of nslu.sf.net ... and please contribute back any patches you needed to make for mipsel and uclibc, so that we can add them to the CVS repository for everyone to benefit from (we have set it up so the packages can be built for both the NSLU2 and the wl500g).
In the NSLU2-Linux project, we have discouraged people from distributing binary ipks without accompanying source code. Instead we give people access to the CVS repository on sf.net so they can contribute the package makefiles and patches directly, and then those packages are regularly built and published in the official ipk repository by the Unslung package release manager.
OpenWRT seems to take the other approach, where everyone publishes their own ipkg binary download areas, and there are a number of them without accompanying source code as far as I can see (there are notable exceptions - some people have their complete build system published alongside the ipkg repository).
Oleg, what is your intention for the wl500g ipkgs ? Is there going to be a central source code repository (like the Unslung CVS repository), where people contribute makefiles and patches, and those packages are built by a central (and trusted) person or persons and uploaded to an official ipkg repository, or is it going to be a free-for-all where there are many different ipkg repositories for the wl500g (with some of them not having source code available) ?
I for one, (for security reasons) would never install a package for which I did not have access to the source code. It is just too easy for someone to insert a Trojan and take control of your complete LAN and all passwords travelling across it. I am *not* suggesting that this is the case for Jean-Fabrice's packages :-)
-- Rod
Jean-Fabrice
19-03-2005, 09:23
Excellent. Did you use the Unslung packages, or some other source?
I've used officials gpl sources from each home site
Since a lot of those packages are GPL, then you should really have the source and Makefiles published somewhere too.
As I said, they come from official tarball. I can post the few adaptation I've made in order to compile them (found with google..). I'm definitively not a developper and just found funny to play with configure, make, Makefile and Google...
I for one, (for security reasons) would never install a package for which I did not have access to the source code. It is just too easy for someone to insert a Trojan and take control of your complete LAN and all passwords travelling across it. I am *not* suggesting that this is the case for Jean-Fabrice's packages :-)
-- Rod
You're totally right and that's the reason why I'm recompiling my own ;)
Now, don't you think there's people which don't have time/knowledge to setup a compiler env. but still want to tweak their Asus ? Each one would then have to take its responsability, no ?
I've used officials gpl sources from each home site
Cool. Thx.
As I said, they come from official tarball. I can post the few adaptation I've made in order to compile them (found with google..). I'm definitively not a developper and just found funny to play with configure, make, Makefile and Google...
It would be useful if you could post your modifications. Then others can make them into makefiles and patches which can be recompiled by anyone who wants to do so.
You're totally right and that's the reason why I'm recompiling my own ;)
Now, don't you think there's people which don't have time/knowledge to setup a compiler env. but still want to tweak their Asus ? Each one would then have to take its responsability, no ?
Fully agree. The other main reason for preferring source availability is so that others who have a slightly different requirement than yours for the same package can take the work you have done and build upon it, instead of starting from scratch and having to do the work that you did all over again.
That's (in my opinion) the best way to contribute back to the community. Binary packages are great. Publishing source code modifications is even better. Going to the extra effort to get your modifications into the original package is even better still :-)
But I do understand that a lot of people don't have the time (or enthusiasm) to go to the extra effort ....
When I don't think I have the time to go to the extra effort, I take a moment and think of the hours and hours and hours of extra effort that Oleg has put in to make this firmware in the first place. That gives me the inspiration to make sure that my contribution is as useful as it can be ... :-)
-- Rod
As for my point of view. :) Distributing binaries for GPL software in any form is not a good idea unless you distribute sources and patches/modification/etc which you've used to compile it. Ideally this should be build system, which should be able to automatically build everything.
As for ipkg sources. There should be trusted sources (most likely wl500g.dyndns.org/ipkg and wl500g.dyndns.org/unslung could be treated as trusted as long as you use my firmware :) ). So, regular users should not care of trojans if they're downloading packages from these sources. In order to achieve this I could start collecting/compiling packages from others. Help on this is really appriciated as I do not have enough time to compile/test everything. But I would like to review patches. :)
Jean-Fabrice,
Did you compile the thttpd-php_2.25b-5.03_mipsel.ipk with mmap_fixed compile option enabled?
With the default setting, thttpd loads the whole page in memory before sending the page to the requesting client. When serving large pages, the router runs out of memory and fails :(
The mmap_fixed option is supposed to prevent this. This way the router can service huge pages (> 50 MB files for example).
Jean-Fabrice
23-03-2005, 09:28
Jean-Fabrice,
Did you compile the thttpd-php_2.25b-5.03_mipsel.ipk with mmap_fixed compile option enabled?
Humm, no I did'nt.
Can you please, please, please recompile it with this option enabled???
I tried it myself, but messed it all up.
I would really, really, really, appreciate it :o It will make the router much more versitile then what it is now. I hope it is not much work for you.
Thanks in advance :-)