Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
#8824 closed enhancement (invalid)
please backport wndr3700v2 support
Reported by: | desrt | Owned by: | developers |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | high | Milestone: | Backfire 10.03.1 |
Component: | base system | Version: | Backfire 10.03.1 RC4 |
Keywords: | Cc: | desrt@… |
Description
With the wndr3700 being such a popular router and version 2 having just been released, it would probably be a good idea to make sure there are stable release images available for it.
10.03.1 seems like a good place to introduce this.
The nightly build images from trunk are working very nicely.
Attachments (3)
Change History (11)
comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by Mark Mentovai <mark@…>
comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by Mark Mentovai <mark@…>
comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by ard@…
I've uploaded the wndr3700v2-backfire.patch, and I am building it right now.
The kernel builds, but somehow I always seem to have trouble building some of the packages...
comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by ard@…
Patchset r24980 must also be used to account for the new signing of the image.
Changed 7 years ago by ard@…
Complete patch. Somehow the image is still seen as NA, but it installs.
comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by ard@…
Sorry about my attachment craze. I am still not sure if patches can better be send to openwrt-devel or this ticket system.
Ok, the NA problem is due to r24981 making -r "" the default and not -r "NA".
I will attach the final total patch next..
Changed 7 years ago by ard@…
complete "backport" of WNDR3700v2 support from trunk to backfire r25855
comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by juhosg
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:7 Changed 7 years ago by txt_file@…
- Resolution fixed deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened
I wanted to build a firmware for my v2 today but neither the image builder in 10.3.1-rc5-testing nor the backfire svn branch have a profile for the v2.
comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by jow
- Resolution set to invalid
- Status changed from reopened to closed
Yeah, because there never was one - v1 and v2 share the same profile. Next time try to at least read the referenced changesets before reopening a ticket based on random speculation.
From #8727. Looks like this would be a backport of r29482, r29483, r25117, r25118, and r25119.