05:09 <damo22> Found Eon flash chip "EN25QH128" (16384 kB, SPI)

06:53 <damo22> what does this do TPLINK_FLASHLAYOUT := 8MLmtk

06:54 <damo22> if my flash chip is 16MB can i use 16MLmtk ?

08:04 <damo22> [mktplinkfw2] *** error: unknown flash layout "16MLmtk"

08:10 <KGB-2> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/openwrt/openwrt_x86.html has been updated. (100.0% images and 100.0% packages reproducible in our current test framework.)

08:32 <damo22> am i supposed to run the mktplinkfw2 tool on a full rom to inspect it?

08:33 <damo22> $ ./staging_dir/host/bin/mktplinkfw2 -i mr200-factory.rom

08:33 <damo22> File name : mr200-factory.rom

08:33 <damo22> [mktplinkfw2] *** error: file does not seem to have V2/V3 header!

08:33 <damo22> File size : 0x01000000 / 16777216 bytes

09:01 <damo22> is this safe to run with tftp? 5017986 May 26 18:58 openwrt-ramips-mt76x8-tplink_archer-mr200-v6-initramfs-kernel.bin

09:02 <damo22> i used the 16Mqca layout which was almost what mine is

10:04 <damo22> MT7628 # tftpboot 0x80060000 mr200-openwrt.bin

10:04 <damo22> MT7628 # bootm

10:04 <damo22> do_bootm:argc=1, addr=0x80060000

10:04 <damo22> ## Booting image at 80060000 ...

10:04 <damo22> done

10:04 <damo22> Uncompressing Kernel Image ... LZMA ERROR 1 - must RESET board to recover

10:06 <damo22> did i use the right sequence?

13:48 <jangrewe> hi all, i'm trying to build my own firmware for mediatek_filogic/cudy_wr3000-v1, following the developer guide from the wiki, and everything seems to run nicely until i hit this close (i assume) to the end: "bash: line 1: /storage/download/openwrt/staging_dir/host/bin/lzma: No such file or directory"

13:49 <jangrewe> here's the the context of the make output: https://paste.faked.org/?d9074a7f34b4dff0#2grR4Mga6N7Rpb8vw2ejXfHyzd6DwVVpTdCgr7dqEgRD

13:50 <schmars[m]> lzma has been removed a while ago, maybe your openwrt clone is out of date?

13:52 <jangrewe> i've checked out the 23.05.3 tag

13:53 <jangrewe> this would be my build script: https://paste.faked.org/?a788aeaedffec9d8#4arR4K7x3w6Unu7AcVGqT4eFoHsJVQZHNBm9dmrq1ZRd

13:56 <jangrewe> this is the .config that's used: https://paste.faked.org/?9316274ec76f30b3#8So75ctWfF9GJwzUwPH4xVrJhb2gSQSAoqAt8XuPMxeL

13:56 <schmars[m]> ah right, lzma was only removed in main

13:57 <schmars[m]> make tools/compile should compile lzma too then

13:57 <jangrewe> i would have thought so, too :-D

14:01 <jangrewe> doesn't seem to do that, though: https://paste.faked.org/?f79d3eebea55d2f7#3Vz982mxP8y3nvZ6aKuHJTvkXcrKr35CLbwVtvvbbMyS

14:03 <jangrewe> i have some lz* binaries, but not lzma: https://paste.faked.org/?7e389e04c4bd71bc#F61CFSTuRJmpgN9eNh4Z9M7htu19AuYMtfyDHan3Q4pK

14:55 <jangrewe> okay, nevermind. i ran a "make distclean" and now it builds fine - sorry for that

18:04 <jangrewe> sorry to bother you guys again, but i discovered the docker imagebuilder, which seems more appropriate for my purpose (take upstream image and add a couple of changes), but it seems like the image that gets built is very minimal - e.g. no uhttpd, no luci

18:05 <jangrewe> this is my CI pipeline used to build the images: https://paste.faked.org/?feb542bcb8105dcd#Fzoy5TXb9ycGZPz6QkqBFbzpbWazLK4dUstQ2sqGh8ue

18:06 <jangrewe> and this is what a build job looks like: https://paste.faked.org/?880174e1f8bd8b34#2sZCWZ2qXpxN3CRHVTmHWH8k8WHXTWe8N9DaNNawNQrm

18:07 <jangrewe> how can i get imagebuilder to build an exactly identical image as the ones you guys publish, just with the customizations included?

18:55 <schmars[m]> releases and snapshots have different package sets (e.g. noch luci in snapshot) - the packages are listed in profiles.json in the respective target directory, e.g. https://downloads.openwrt.org/releases/23.05.3/targets/ramips/mt7621/profiles.json

18:55 <schmars[m]> default_packages + device_packages

18:57 <schmars[m]> though i'm not sure why that ^ 23.05.3 profiles.json doesn't list e.g. luci and other highlevel packages

19:02 <jangrewe> it should be this: https://downloads.openwrt.org/releases/23.05.3/targets/mediatek/filogic/profiles.json

19:02 <jangrewe> but yeah, it's missing all the interesting bits

19:26 <jangrewe> so if imagebuilder builds all (as it seems) images with just the minimum+device packages, where/when does luci etc. get added?

19:59 <swalker> updated openwrt/upstream, https://sdwalker.github.io/uscan/index.html

20:04 <schmars[m]> the images on downloads.openwrt.org are not actually build by imagebuilder, they're build by openwrt.git buildroot itself

20:05 <schmars[m]> https://github.com/openwrt/buildbot

20:06 <Habbie> hehe, buildbot<>buildroot

20:06 <schmars[m]> but i dont know where the full package list gets assembled either

20:06 <schmars[m]> yeeeah but the build system that we call with make is still called buildroot no? :)

20:06 <Habbie> i believe it is!

20:07 <schmars[m]> buildrot and buildboot \o/

23:16 <jangrewe> so the official images are always built from source, and imagebuilder is only meant for building custom images based on minimal images? Which means if i want to build a customized "just like the official" image, i'll have to build from source?

23:19 <dwfreed> you can use the image builder for that; it may not produce an image that is bit-for-bit identical, but it'll have the same practical content

23:21 <jangrewe> dwfreed: but how? as explained the links above, i'm doing as little as possible and only add some uci-defaults and 3 additional packages, yet the resulting image is absolutely minimal - no luci, no uhttpd

23:22 <dwfreed> because the image builder defaults don't include luci

23:22 <dwfreed> just add luci too

23:23 <dwfreed> I believe specifically you want luci-ssl, and that'll pull in luci itself and all the deps necessary for luci/uhttpd to support tls

23:24 <jangrewe> so where does e.g. firmware-selector get the info from that it's supposed to include luci? there has to be a source for that somewhere...

23:26 <dwfreed> actually it adds that itself

23:26 <dwfreed> https://firmware-selector.openwrt.org/config.js

23:27 <jangrewe> oh wow... so the most "just like official" method would indeed be from source then.

23:28 <dwfreed> there's no point in wasting CPU cycles building from source

23:29 <dwfreed> there is no practical difference in using the image builder to build an image that includes luci

23:41 <jangrewe> sure, but unless there's a versioned source for the list of packages, that's the only way to do CI/CD properly. And with a bit of caching it won't be that bad. i really don't want to start this off with kludges like downloading and parsing that config.js :-D

23:48 <dwfreed> why does it matter?

23:49 <dwfreed> you're literally making this 10x harder than it needs to be