[OpenWrt-Devel] OpenWrt Roadmap
rosenp at gmail.com
Tue Nov 13 14:40:13 EST 2018
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:13 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think there is a little misunderstanding about this topic.
> As many know here for OpenWrt doesn't quiet work as the same for a
> company's project where you may have dedicated people to a project.
> People work in the stuff they get interested and give some attention to
> whatever is agreed by the project guidelines.
> I am sure developers will continue to dedicate most of their time to the
> newer and trunk versions and if agreed to extend LEDE 17.01 EOL to it as
> well whenever is strictly necessary.
It would be very nice for people still working on 17.01 to post their changes.
> The idea put is to extend LEDE 17.01 EOL a little while (not forever)
> because it has been reported by a significant amount of people that
> 18.06 is not an option anymore for a large amount of older but still
> usable devices due its bigger footprint. Also to minimize the amount of
> attention it may require the idea is not to have new features but only
> critical security and bug fixes. If 18.06 was an option this would not
> be necessary but as there has been significant improvements to this
> version then extending LEDE 17.01 EOL becomes justifiable given the
> number of active devices that still benefit for it.
> Best regards
> On 12/11/2018 20:39, Alberto Bursi wrote:
> > On 12/11/18 21:57, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> >> Totally agree with Luiz. That was the idea behind this proposal and
> >> you managed to even easier words.
> >> Alberto, the tiny subtarget you mentioned doesn't really seem to run
> >> well or stably for 18.06 on many of these devices regardless the
> >> flash size, that's the main point.
> >> As mentioned there are many new devices still coming with 32MB of RAM
> >> and which can take benefit of OpenWrt for various reasons and usages.
> >> I think for many of us here are completely fine to put some extra
> >> cash and buy a newer hardware to cope with OpenWrt evolution but the
> >> reality is that majority of people are not. Another example I wanted
> >> to put to illustrate is an ISP that has thousands of existing devices
> >> with similar specs running, being still able to keep using OpenWrt
> >> more securely while they start to introduce newer hardware to their
> >> customer base allowing to make a more smooth transition to these more
> >> powerful hardware.
> > I quite frankly don't believe it's worth allocating what limited
> > manpower there is. While I'm not a OpenWrt developer and I don't speak
> > on behalf of the project, I really believe that you are
> > underestimating the effort required behind even a basic LTS release
> > like a "only core packages" or such. I think that if translated into
> > man-hours (and therefore money) it would amount to much higher than
> > just letting devices go EOL and have people replace them.
> > The ISP can pay for someone to do this job if they think really need
> > it (but imho it would be better to spend their funds in newer
> > hardware, besides they should have planned for hardware obsolescence
> > already).
> > As a point of comparison, even Debian that is far larger than OpenWrt
> > only agreed to extend the support period for its old release (which is
> > a "mostly core packages" affair too, kernel, basic userspace and
> > server software) after some sponsors showed up and paid for it.
> > -Alberto
> >> Regards
> >> Fernando
> >> On 12/11/2018 18:20, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>> There are a significant amount of devices out there that has 4/32
> >>> specs. Even brand new ones.
> >>> If there is stability issues with newer OpenWrt versions on those
> >>> devices, we should rethink LEDE EOL.
> >>> Maintenance burden is directly related to the amount of software to
> >>> maintain. At the same time, low specs means they might have no
> >>> interest in most packages.
> >>> Maybe 15.05 life could be extend with a lower cost by limiting
> >>> maintenance to a subset of packages (core? even less?). We could
> >>> release LEDE 15.05.(x+1) LTS with feeds configured to use only that
> >>> subset of packages. We could also limit the images to those low spec
> >>> models.
> >>> EOL is not really a big deal until it requires a new HW. Routers are
> >>> things that die hard, even after a decade. It just doesn't seem right
> >>> to turn old working hw into electronic waste because of software.
> >>> Keeping old stuff running is even on of the reasons to use OSS.
> >>> Regards,
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> openwrt-devel mailing list
> >>> openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> >>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> openwrt-devel mailing list
> >> openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> >> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
> > _______________________________________________
> > openwrt-devel mailing list
> > openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
More information about the openwrt-devel