Linux Foundation

Daniel Golle daniel at
Mon Mar 6 05:21:44 EST 2017

Hi Florian,

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:01:20AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 03/01/2017 09:42 AM, Stijn Tintel wrote:
> > On 01-03-17 13:02, John Crispin wrote:
> >> 1) do we want to remerge
> > Yes.
> >> 2) do we want to rebrand
> > 
> > Neutral, or I might even prefer a 3rd option to make things even more
> > complicated.
> > 
> > Personally I now have more non-wireless devices running LEDE than
> > wireless ones, so the "W" in OpenWrt no longer makes sense.
> > And try saying "I am a LEDE developer" and convince yourself it's not
> > confusing, especially since we don't have a "lead" developer.
> How about this then:
> LEDE is the umbrella project name, whose scope extends past routers and
> network devices.
> OpenWrt now becomes a "sub" brand whose scope is router/networked devices?
> That way, we can add other brands as the LEDE wants to be specialized...

I fully support that direction, I believe that makes most sense and
could make all of us happy.
Let there be a single git tree and differentiate only the build-time
configuration, such that the OpenWrt release builds contain LuCI,
dnsmasq and have their kernel configuration optmized for routing and
so on.

LEDE release builds should be more of a general purpose embedded OS
without a web-UI (uhttpd, LuCI) or router-specific features (dnsmasq)
included and have their kernel config tuned to cover all sorts of
possible uses, e.g. virtualization as well as LXC/cgroup/namespace-
related stuff enabled, xattr and acl support for filesystems and all
that switched on, network-stack tuned for services (sendfile() and
such) rather than forwarding performance.

And yes, lets have all sorts of other LEDE build flavours, if there is
interest in that. In addition to the 'classic' OpenWrt build and the
'generic' LEDE build mentioned above, I can also imagine a build
optimized for mobile/battery/power-management as well as a
low-latency/realtime/preempt/HZ=1000 build for audio and signal

We kinda already have some of that differentiation, as OpenWrt snapshot
builds don't contain uhttpd and LuCI while release builds do...

And it's easy to implement this as it basically boils down to different
.config seeds fed to buildbot and that's it, right?



More information about the openwrt-adm mailing list