Dragons will be spouting flames again!

Dear Turris users,

Once upon a time, there were :dragon: , which were spoutting flames almost every day in a branch called HereBeDragons (hbd). During that time strong men from OpenWrt castle wanted to tame them, so they could stop spouting fires anywhere. By using magic wand :dragon_face: were transformed into :lion:.
But in branch HereBeLions (hbl), they became wild as they were heading to OpenWrt 19.07 world.

We are trying to catch those who escaped to putting them back to our small ZOO. Once we catch them all, we will borrow a magic wand from wonderland and by using magic, we will transform them as :cat: (Kittens) and lately as :turtle: (Turtles) and :snail: (Snails)! There is going to be an announcement from our ZOO, where we will let you know when we catch all the wild lions, who escaped!

Some pilgrims let us know that they want to have Dragons with :fire: . Should we allow it? Let’s spawn new and more dragons with even stronger flames than before. They will be in the branch HBD in upcoming days (approx in a week or two)!

If you are using branch HBD to follow OpenWrt 19.07, we would like to suggest to use branch HBL as HBD will be tracking OpenWrt master again soon.


So, in normal speech… When should those who are running on TOS5 switch to HBL when they still want to stay on TOS5??? Can someone explain it, please?

I believe lions are on 5.x for some time already. https://repo.turris.cz/hbl/mox/lists/turris-version

1 Like

When will be released first beta of Turris OS 5?

Lot of fancy writing but not delivering. Skip the fancy writing and deliver instead, like a 5.x beta for instance.

A month later there is 5.1 (OpenWrt 19.07) in HBD, same as HBL. Then there are commits in Master but no builds by bot.

In upcoming days/soon. Is Half-Life 3 coming? No, but Half-Life: Alyx is coming.

It seems you are only the one, who is interested in the HBD branch. Yes, it is described in our workflow and we are working on it, but for us, the main priority is on OpenWrt 19.07.

Any pull requests are welcome.

I will let you know when Dragons will be spouting flames again.

  • back in the day when Master from upstream been available it provided an early awareness/testing of upstream code changes that eventually impacted downstream (recall LuCI kernel log and syslog, procd bug)
  • upstream code changes in their Master branch may (unpredictably) be uplifted into upstream’s stable branch and subsequent TOS stable (causality)

Almost two months on since the initial announcement and almost one month since the follow up

there is not even the slighted indication in the repo that the upstream code development branch gets accessible through the downstream build bots.

What is the point of this teaser then (kidding about?) if CZ.NIC does not have the capacity to carry the upstream code development?

It happened that if you are confident and prepared to release it, things might go wrong which happened in this case, and to make little of it, there was decided that the upcoming release of OpenWrt will be based on kernel 5.4, which is LTS and it didn’t make sense anymore to prepare all of our routers for kernel 4.19 when kernel 5.4. was knocking on OpenWrt’s doors soon and rebase all patches, test it, and additional stuff related to it.

In OpenWrt, it took almost a month to merge pull request, which moved mvebu targets (Turris Omnia and Turris MOX) from kernel 4.19 to 5.4. It does not make sense to do the same or similar work twice and waste other people’s work.

While we were working on it, we met a few issues and try to solve them upstream as this is the way how it should be since the beginning, right? For example, I would like to mention these patches, but there are a lot more (see changes in aardvark, …)!

  1. Linux Kernel Build mailing list - Patchwork
  2. Linux Kernel Build mailing list - Patchwork

There’s a plan to push our series of patches to OpenWrt. Unfortunately, it does not work that we will flick of a finger and everything works magically and will be everywhere you want. Your kind words do not help us either.

Finally, HBD builds are introduced for Turris 1.0 and Turris 1.1 routers and as well for Turris MOX. For the last mention, there you might found an update for u-boot. I haven’t forget about Turris Omnia, the builds will be introduced in a few days. It is currently on review.

Some encouraging highlights:

From our documentation:

Suitable for distribution developers or people in desperate need of new OpenWrt. Generally considered dangerous and can seriously break or stop being built for some time without any warning. Suggested to be used only by experienced users!

Keep assured before trying out that this comes absolutely with no guarantee nor support!


Great, kernel 5.4 and new u-boot could be cure for my Omnia and SFP module.

And that was advised me to sell it!

Could you please be specific about user feedback on HBD (potential issues) - is it wanted/welcome or not? Perhaps pin a topic in the forum for which branches user feedback is invited and for which branches it is not?

Turris team provides no guarantees and no support for this branch. You can get some help on forum (https://forum.test.turris.cz/).
If you encounter some bugs than please debug cause and report it to developers trough gitlab (Turris · GitLab),
You shouldn’t be in this branch unless you are advanced user and OpenWrt developer!

This you will see after you will use the HBD branch or in the source-code of switch branch. I think we don’t mind reporting these issues, but it should be clearly stated on the forum that you are using the HBD/testing branch not to confuse newcomers. There could be a new category, but categories on this forum are subject to change. The preferred way is Gitlab/Github and pulls requests are welcome. Each report should be clear and should contain as many details as possible. If you report the issue in this branch, it will have the lowest priority and it might stay without activity for weeks/months. Our primary development branches are HBK and HBL.

On the other hand, if you are using HBD, you should really know if this is an issue in Turris OS itself (let’s say in our packages from turris-os-packages repository or patches in turris-build repository) or in OpenWrt (upstream). Most of those reports I believe from this branch should and must be reported to upstream and not to us.

That is not always easy to determine/untangle as:

  • downstream is deviating from some upstream defaults (e.g. kconf, device tree, webserver, resolver)
  • different package versions between upstream and downstream (e.g. lxc)
  • downstream patches of upstream code (e.g. DSA driver)

So, probably, that means that really HBD is for development only and HBL is where the user testing starts. And as far as I can tell anything wilder than late stage HBT is not suitable for most people’s main gateway.

The same issue reporting logic applies to all branches and HBD’s designation as next-major is not defined by issue reporting logic

Is the review process/progress publicly traceable, is this the place mvebu: initial 5.4 support by dengqf6 · Pull Request #2804 · openwrt/openwrt · GitHub or somewhere else?

It seems that upstream finalised their review then git.openwrt.org Git - openwrt/openwrt.git/commitdiff

Last reports with kernel 5.4 have all been positive, so let’s open this to a wider range of testers.

1 Like

You want to try kernel 5.4 on Omnia ? If that woud succeed it would feel like frozen hell :slight_smile: i am joking :slight_smile: But I highly doubt it will be possible and just that easy as openwrt kernel is heavily and I mean very heavily customized by all the patches and then on top of it you got nic devolopers patches as well. And the work probably means to go through it one by one comparing patch to version 4 kernel and adjust it to version 5 which seems quite lot of works that no one have probably enough time to do now.

Since the fail logs from upstream’s build bot Index of /snapshots/faillogs/arm_cortex-a8_vfpv3/ looked promising I took it for a spin on a SSD partition

Hope the folks are not catching a cold :slight_smile:

1 Like