06:26 <KGB-2> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/openwrt/openwrt_tegra.html has been updated. (100.0% images and 100.0% packages reproducible in our current test framework.)

09:28 <fda> hello, i cant get a raspberry 2 boot with openwrt. i used several other device with openwrt before. i attached a display to the PI and i see booting until "cam-dummy-reg: disabling". then noting happens, also no login prompt. this is a complete new install without any config, just the unpacked self compiled openwrt-bcm27xx-bcm2709-rpi-2-squashfs-sysupgrade.img.gz

09:29 <fda> should the be a login prompt on the attached display? i think the ip should be 192.168.1.1 like all openwrt devices, but ping get no reply

09:31 <dwfreed> there's a "factory" image for those

09:31 <dwfreed> that's probably what you should be using

09:33 <fda> both are ~27mb, the factory is 10 kb smaller. i will try

09:34 <fda> i never can remember the difference between sysupgrade and factory

09:35 <jow> susupgrade = upgrade from openwrt to openwrt

09:35 <jow> factory the rest

09:36 <fda> beside that: should a raspberry show a "login" prompt on a attached display?

09:41 <Borromini> it should if the display is recognised (which it probably is if you see a boot log)

09:41 <Borromini> but one usually needs to hit Enter to have the screen cleared and prompt displayed AFAIK

09:42 <Znevna> and you should probably start with an official image instead of self build ones

09:42 <Znevna> self built*

10:41 <lynxis> I've created the channel #openwrt-fosdem for everyone who is at fosdem this evening and want to meet up.

10:41 <lynxis> *this weekend

11:25 <jow> oh nice, ipaddress san support in mbedtls

11:25 <jow> was stumbling over the very same issue recently

11:31 <Borromini> seems there is no consensus in moving completely to mbedtls and ditching wolfssl for hostapd?

11:32 <Borromini> if mbedtls works I'd figure it would be a no-brainer to move back instead of supporting both wolfssl and mbedtls with official images (the meeting notes suggested keeping wolfssl for more modern hardware with more flash)

11:32 <jow> I'd go with either openssl or mbeldtls

11:32 <jow> and ditch wolfssl

11:36 <karlp> :+1:

11:43 <hauke> Borromini: someone has to do the switch

11:43 <hauke> by preparing some patches

11:44 <Znevna> the switch of ramips to 5.15? yes please

11:46 <f00b4r0> hauke: I thought that's what #11626 did?

11:49 <hauke> f00b4r0: ok, haven't seen that

11:51 <f00b4r0> hauke: ah sorry, I thought you did. Ansuel pinged there.

11:54 <Borromini> hauke: yes there's a PR for switching to mbedtls AFAIK

11:54 <Borromini> jow: couldn't agree more :P

11:55 <Borromini> Znevna: you okay? :P

12:59 <fda> well, well, well, .. i have a etc/config/network file for every device to change the default ip. the raspberry is new and has not yet such a file. but from a build before there was still a file. and i just did not knew the ip

13:00 <fda> so it worked all the time perfect, with both images, facotry+sysupgrad

13:00 <fda> also there is no login prompt on raspberry's attached display (i have no usb keyboard attached)

13:13 <stintel> neggles: looks like there were 3 of those XD2-240 :P

13:42 <fda> @jow: i have since a long time some luci patches here, maybe you want to merge: https://pastebin.com/pNx5SEmR - https://pastebin.com/gCitj9nf - https://pastebin.com/SiKXkNxa

13:43 <fda> screenshots https://ibb.co/zXVnYPz - https://ibb.co/DWw5hd3 - i dont use anymore the qtypes patch / statistics on the device

13:58 <karlp> have you considered making a PR on https://github.com/openwrt/luci/ ?

14:30 <owrt-2203-builds> Build [#221](https://buildbot.openwrt.org/openwrt-22.03/images/#builders/40/builds/221) of `mvebu/cortexa53` failed.

15:30 <yolo> any chance to support long range wifi on openwrt trunk, 802.11ah for NRC7292, new to this

15:31 <yolo> isn't mbedtls not hostapd ready? tls1.3 that is? would love to have mbedtls as the default, openssl is fine too

15:35 <yolo> https://lwn.net/Articles/906473/ not sure if 802.11s will work

15:38 <f00b4r0> stintel: https://www.ebay.fr/itm/155389898707 - I grabbed it. Love the "ideal für openwrt" subtitle ;)

15:40 <karlp> heh, cute: xz: Reduced the number of threads from 8 to 5 to not exceed the memory usage limit of 3913 MiB

15:42 <Slimey> hehe

15:43 <karlp> now, to find out to let it use m,ore ram :)

15:44 <stintel> f00b4r0: Cette vente est terminée.

15:44 <Slimey> i dont think tech support reads case notes anymore these days..

15:45 <stintel> f00b4r0: ah another m300

15:45 <stintel> smart sller

15:45 <stintel> seller*

15:54 <f00b4r0> stintel: yes "cette vente est terminée" because I bought it ;)

15:54 <f00b4r0> there's another one listed for 99 btw

15:55 <f00b4r0> actually 2

15:57 <stintel> I have enough :P

15:58 <f00b4r0> ;)

15:58 <stintel> and apparently 3x xd2-240 on the way too :D

15:59 <f00b4r0> fortigate 300C for 99. AIUI these use custom ASICs though

16:04 <stintel> some site claims 300d and 300e is intel

16:05 <stintel> no info on 300c there though

16:10 <f00b4r0> https://fortinet.globalgate.com.ar/pdfs/FortiGate/FGT300C_DS.pdf "Powered by FortiASICs"

16:12 <Slimey> heh

16:55 <f00b4r0> rmilecki: I haven't checked what the current status is in fw4 but I think what's missing here is a configuration system for conntrack-extra. In fw3, having the package installed implies that all protocol handlers are activated by default, which is less than ideal imho

18:31 <aparcar[m]> how do I correctly create a configuration for devices with SMALL_FLASH enabled?

18:31 <aparcar[m]> it seems to keep those packages from regular flash ones in the .config file

18:32 <aparcar[m]> nick: btw are you aware of LOW_MEMORY_FOOTPRINT? I remember you though about adding a SMALL_MEMORY variable

18:34 <Borromini> aparcar[m]: where are you seeing that decision that there will be an mbedtls/openssl split?

18:34 <Borromini> i am not seeing that in the meeting notes

18:34 <Borromini> (i will comment on the mbedtls PR)

18:34 <KGB-2> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/openwrt/openwrt_kirkwood.html has been updated. (100.0% images and 100.0% packages reproducible in our current test framework.)

18:35 <aparcar[m]> Borromini: yea it's not correctly documented. I offered to create a PR so we have mbedtls for small devices and openssl for bigger ones

18:36 <aparcar[m]> it's 250kb vs 1000kb, wolfssl being somewhere around 500kb

18:36 <Borromini> ok.

18:36 <aparcar[m]> thoughts?

18:36 <Borromini> mind if i list them in the comment on the PR?

18:37 <Borromini> might have a bit more visibility/permanence so to speak

18:37 <aparcar[m]> sure please go ahead

18:37 <Borromini> ty

18:38 <aparcar[m]> 🙂

18:52 <stintel> what's the reason for this split?

18:52 <stintel> I'd feel more comfortable choosing 1 default and fixing whatever doesn't work in there

18:55 <stintel> (sorry I didn't attend the meeting, I got an invite only the same day and I had just returned from travelling)

18:56 <aparcar[m]> I see this causes some confusion. ynezz what do you think of mbedtls for all devices even if it is slower?

18:56 <Borromini> aparcar[m]: I fully agree about ditching WolfSSL, has caused enough pain.

18:58 <aparcar[m]> we could still merge the mbedtls patch and later on decide of the split

19:04 <aparcar[m]> Borromini: btw the meeting notes say "make it depend on flash size" regarding openssl/wolfssl/mbedtls

19:13 <yolo> is mbedtls ready? last time I heard here is that tls1.3 and hostapd, neither are not fully ready as far as mbedtls goes

19:13 <yolo> s/are/is/

19:21 <aparcar[m]> yolo: based on the testing of multiple people, it's fine

19:27 <owrt-snap-builds> Build [#452](https://buildbot.openwrt.org/master/images/#builders/72/builds/452) of `imx/cortexa9` completed successfully.

19:33 <Borromini> aparcar[m]: sure, but the sentence is led in by a 'maybe'

19:33 <Borromini> To me, that reads more like thinking out loud and not a statement of fact or a decision. But I am no native speaker.

19:34 <Borromini> Most of point 6 sounds open-ended, not like a decision was taken, the way it's phrased

19:43 <aparcar[m]> Yup, at the end it was summarized by suggesting that I make the pr

19:51 <aparcar[m]> anyway, mbedtls sounds fine to me

19:59 <f00b4r0> i'd tend to think we do not have the resources to maintain two concurrent TLS implementations tbh. Mbedtls for all would have my preference, but I'm no expert.

19:59 <f00b4r0> power users who need bleeding edge performance I'm sure would be capable of using something else

20:05 <Borromini> i am using OpenSSL on anything mt7621/mvebu/x86_64 already

20:05 <Borromini> but yeah, I roll my own, so I can f*ck up by myself as well :P

20:07 <Borromini> even if mbedTLS becomes default, I suppose people using OpenSSL will have an 'issue' with 23.xx at some point since 1.1.1 will be EOL in September

20:13 <yolo> best, both be supported equally, even for 8MB flash I think openssl still can be used.

21:49 <nick[m]12> aparcar: yes Im aware of this flag :)