Linux Foundation

David Lang david at
Mon Mar 6 06:33:00 EST 2017

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, Daniel Golle wrote:

> 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
> processing.
> 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?

If this can be supported (and is acceptable to everyone), I think it would be a 
good idea.

David Lang

More information about the openwrt-adm mailing list