[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH][CC] Revert "ar71xx: change some TP-link modelnames (WR841, WA701, WA730)"

[John Crispin]

On 26/04/2016 09:22, kwadronaut wrote:
> On 25/04/16 09:06, John Crispin wrote:
>> On 25/04/2016 08:54, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
>>> * John Crispin <john at phrozen.org> [25.04.2016 07:39]:
>>>>> The changed image name breaks compatibility for derived projects and
>>>>> that's something which should only happen if there is a really good
>>>>> reason (e.g. security fix).
>>>>
>>>> how does it beak compatibility ?
>>>
>>> I think they auto-download a preconfigured filename,
>>> which will ofcource not succeed. We circumvented this in our
>>> network-autoupdater in a way, that we download e.g. "$MODELNAME.bin"
>>> where $MODELNAME is from '/tmp/sysinfo/model' e.g. 'TP-Link TL-WDR4900 v1'
>>> and on the downloadserver we can "adjust" the symlinks...
>>>
>>> I'am against reverting the commit. Lets keep it, because it makes sense.
> 
> It doesn't make sense to change naming conventions within a stable
> release. For a next stable release, sure fine, go ahead, there it *does*
> make sense.
> 
>>> Maybe i can give a short talk at Battlemesh v9 about proper autoupdates,
>>> because we have ~10 years experience in this (including 500 dead devices
>>> 8-)))
> 
> I agree, over the years everyone keeps improving and once in a while
> that hurts, but auto-updates isn't what we're aiming for.
> 
>> before i merged the patch i did actually look at the compat issue and
>> concluded that only docs will be out of date, which is not really
>> anything new. all issues mentioned are home made ones. specially the one
> 
> If tomorrow Sasha Levin thinks that the LTS-kernel release of 4.1 should
> be called 4.1-21 instead of 4.1.21 nothing really breaks. Except a bunch
> of home made scripts. And some distributions will need to take care of
> their autobuilds. And a lot of people will spend useless time into
> figuring out what broke in which way, and they will be angry or sad. An
> attitude of "Don't break current stable" is a very healthy one. When
> however you add or change behavior, you save that for a new release.
> 
>> bastian mentions here. basically fixing your download script and
>> deploying it in this way will break forward compat as can be seen here.
>>
>> we now face the decision of reverting and unbreaking out of tree issues
>> that can be fixed easily or avoided in future or not revert it and keep
>> the fix that makes the filenames more consistent. adding the "n" is
>> after all correct ad the antenna is not "not" detachable on the relevant
>> models.
> 
> This sounds like a minor pain.
> 
> kwadronaut

i fail to extract from your mail what you are trying to tell us
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel