opkg is a symbolic link to the gpkg file, because gpkg customizes Gargoyle.stuartbh wrote: What is the difference between opkg and gpkg? I was using opkg. Are they the same thing?
Gargoyle on ProxMox - Passthrough a device
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Gargoyle on ProxMox - Passthrough a device
Turris Omnia with OpenWrt 21.02 - Tested
Linksys WRT3200ACM with Gargoyle 1.13.x
TL-WR1043ND v2 with Gargoyle 1.10.0
http://gargoyle.romanhk.cz custom builds by gargoyle users
Linksys WRT3200ACM with Gargoyle 1.13.x
TL-WR1043ND v2 with Gargoyle 1.10.0
http://gargoyle.romanhk.cz custom builds by gargoyle users
Re: Gargoyle on ProxMox - Passthrough a device
There is no need to apologize, I was not suggesting you did anything wrong! I only was a bit surprised that there was no easy way to get the iwlwifi driver into Gargoyle without doing a full recompile.Lantis wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 11:34 pmI apologise that the default x86 image doesn't meet your needs or expectations.
It isn't stated anywhere that it has wireless capability. It was born from the ALIX profile which is a wired only device subset. I did that just to give it a bit more usability and utility (i.e able to support more than just 1 or 2 very rare and old devices).
I do not have an x86 device with wireless capability, and therefore:
- I have no way of testing viability of including wireless drivers
- I have no personal interest in doing so (it doesn't help me!)
Moreover, I violently agree with the idea of keeping Gargoyle a quality and well tested product. However, that does not mean that there cannot be a mechanism for people to add on or easily try things that are not well tested. When I saw how difficult adding iwlwifi was going to be, I was like wow, I really wanted to use Gargoyle on x86 (at least initially, I've learned more since).
I never suggested that either. Currently, the Gargoyle development team does an excellent job of assuring a qualitative release and as such, I would never wish to subvert that success whatsoever.It is also impractical to imagine that i (or anyone else) would have a device that has every type of wireless device in it. So, how do we decide what drivers to include and which ones not to? We can't practically test all of them.
However, providing packages that are marked as less than fully tested components to Gargoyle that can be implemented and test without having to fully recompile might be a good thing for some users and would encourage people to test things the developers may not have time or hardware to test.
I will surely own up to the fact that I am not volunteering to make the time at this point to do all this extra work, so, I expect my comments to be taken with some pause.
I surely did not mean to be a foot stomper and complain, I just have to say I figured the X86 version would be as fully functional and easily stood up as all other things Gargoyle usually are.This is an open source project. You (or anyone else) have the ability to download the source, customise it, include the drivers you want, test it, and let someone know if it works (or doesn't).
If someone sent me a pull request tomorrow which included iwlwifi by default and said "i've tested this and it works great", i'd merge it in a heartbeat (assuming they're not talking rubbish).
If next week someone sent me one saying that ath10k works as well, i'd merge that too.
What i'm getting at is, the community (that includes you) can't just sit there with your hands out and stomp your feet when it doesn't work. Help me to help you.
I am so sorry I made you feel bad, that was never my intention and I do most surely appreciate all the hard work that people do on Gargoyle. My initial post did try to start with a thank you.If someone wants to help:
- https://github.com/ericpaulbishop/gargo ... /README.md
- https://github.com/ericpaulbishop/gargo ... IBUTING.md
- https://www.gargoyle-router.com/wiki/do ... umentation
If that doesn't work for you, you can try taking it up with Eric if you like. He may be more or less sympathetic to the issue and may have more time to look at it than me. He's the authority. I just took this up as a hobby.
The experiences I've had with Gargoyle for x86 (and OpenWRT for x86) has left me feeling that I perhaps was seeing this wrong. Using each product in its best of breed way is probably my best way ahead. DD-WRT for all it can do, has a horrible mechanism for dealing with DHCP leases if you want to add more than one at a time, nor does it make using OpenVPN anywhere as turn key as Gargoyle does! However, it has other capabilities (like virtual WiFi interfaces and such) that make it interesting to me too. I think my needs for an internet facing router will best be served by DD-WRT, but, I do intend to continue using Gargoyle (on my Netgear router) as a DHCP server and OpenVPN server. Where DD-WRT is better for other things like PXE booting and virtual interfaces, I will use it.Now administratively, please keep the posts kind and on topic.
One final note: iwlwifi appears to only support AP mode in 2.4GHz (not 5GHz) in linux. So make sure you measure your expectations before going further with the ddwrt or openwrt routes.
My internet provider (Century Link) gives me a DSL modem that they rarely upgrade the firmware in, which means it probably has unmitigated security flaws that no one has discovered or bothered to fix, so I do not trust it as a WiFi AP or as a firewall. It operates strictly in bridge mode to get data from DSL to Ethernet frames.
I have a ZoneFlex ZF7762-S WiFi router that I want to mount outside (it is an outdoor router). I initially had wanted to see if it might be easy to load Gargoyle, DD-WRT or OpenWRT onto it (since the people at Ruckus do use a Linux variant running on it for their environment), but realized it would be very difficult given time constraints I have. Thus, I am thinking to use it "as is" (which is fine, it has some nice features like VLAN support too).
Thank you (and to everyone) for their hard work of making Gargoyle the quality product it is!
Very Respectfully,
Stuart, N3GWG
Computer Scientist
Stuart, N3GWG
Computer Scientist