Choose style:

Author Topic: OpenWRT Build Root for SDK  (Read 5317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline matt

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • Thanks: 1
  • Registered : 26/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
OpenWRT Build Root for SDK
« on: September 16, 2014, 02:11:51 am »
With the SDK out, it would be nice to build some additions in as openwrt opkg files. But from my recent, very limited reading up on the subject, it seems as though we need the actual build root for OpenWRT in order to do so, and not just the toolchain/SDK. Is there somewhere we can get this? Or I guess if you can just tell us the OpenWRT branch/revision we can pull it ourselves. If I am missing something, I apologize, please just let me know.

E.g. I would like to be able to do this:
http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/howto/build#building.single.packages

Thanks.

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: OpenWRT Build Root for SDK
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2014, 06:31:56 am »
We're going to release the source code which will allow you to do this. It's just taking some time as we're working on the next firmware right now, but once that's out, we should be able to release the source code again which will include everything needed this time around.

Offline nsvrana

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 13/09/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: OpenWRT Build Root for SDK
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2014, 09:23:16 am »
We're going to release the source code which will allow you to do this. It's just taking some time as we're working on the next firmware right now, but once that's out, we should be able to release the source code again which will include everything needed this time around.

No rush (more than you guys already are at least!) but is there an ETA for that release? I'd really like to add a VPN client :)

LGNilsson

  • Guest
Re: OpenWRT Build Root for SDK
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2014, 10:30:31 am »
Hopefully Friday, we have a few bugs to iron out, once they're done, we'll release it. The beta version has been good so R066 or whatever it'll be called should be a solid release, but it won't fix all the issues.

Offline nsvrana

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Thanks: 0
  • Registered : 13/09/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: OpenWRT Build Root for SDK
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2014, 10:51:00 am »
Hopefully Friday, we have a few bugs to iron out, once they're done, we'll release it. The beta version has been good so R066 or whatever it'll be called should be a solid release, but it won't fix all the issues.

Fantastic, I'm moving into a new place and was hoping to make the A+ my primary router at that time, so the timing great :)

Offline matt

  • Backer
  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • Thanks: 1
  • Registered : 26/08/2013
    YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears
Re: OpenWRT Build Root for SDK
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2014, 12:34:08 pm »
Hopefully Friday, we have a few bugs to iron out, once they're done, we'll release it. The beta version has been good so R066 or whatever it'll be called should be a solid release, but it won't fix all the issues.

Sounds great. Yeah, for now I've been doing a far more hackish system (along the lines of the following, note that I'm compiling on 64 bit, hence some of the weirdness in there):

Code: [Select]
TOOLCHAINDIR=WHERE_YOUR_TOOLCHAIN_IS
INSTALLDIR=SOME_SCRATCH_AREA
export PATH="$PATH:/$TOOLCHAINDIR/toolchain-arm_gcc-4.5.1+l_uClibc-0.9.32_eabi/bin/"
export ac_cv_func_malloc_0_nonnull=yes
export ac_cv_func_realloc_0_nonnull=yes
export STAGING_DIR=/$TOOLCHAINDIR/toolchain-arm_gcc-4.5.1+l_uClibc-0.9.32_eabi
./configure --build=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu --host=arm-openwrt-linux
make
make install DESTDIR=$INSTALLDIR

Then tar up the $INSTALLDIR, copy it over (with tftp) and untar it, and copy the files into the file system. Be very careful with that last step though, I have been examining each file before moving it onto the filesystem.

Hence why it will be nice to do it as a package instead.

 

Page created in 0.081 seconds with 21 queries.

bottleneck