Gargoyle as OpenWrt package

Discuss the technical details of Gargoyle and ongoing development

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
db90h
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:37 pm

Gargoyle as OpenWrt package

Post by db90h »

While reviewing the buildroot patches Gargoyle applies, I see that most could be accomplished in a package by replacing the affected scripts and default configuration files. Some of the source code changes not in the kernel could also be distributed as custom packages with those modifications. For *kernel patches* the issue is harder to deal with, but I didn't see any super-critical kernel patches.

Thus, I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be preferred to distribute a version of Gargoyle as an OpenWrt package. Of course, compatibility could NOT be guaranteed, and it may take some additional user configuration. All dependencies could be installed along with the meta package.

So, are there any plans to create a Gargoyle package?

What are the blockers, other than those I've listed here?

BashfulBladder
Moderator
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: Gargoyle as OpenWrt package

Post by BashfulBladder »

Getting Gargoyle to compile via an OpenWrt feeds build would be great. But Gargoyle isn't directed at hardcore power-users. And hardcore power users are either more interested in stability or more features than a web interface can present. Most anybody can glean a general overview from ifconfig faster than logging into Gargoyle to see 1 webpage.

Gargoyle distributed via opkg as the preferred distribution method would be detrimental I think.

Gargoyle's appeal is that it presents a very low threshold to open-source firmware adoption. I don't see many entry-level questions regarding Luci - probably because it takes some non-trivial amount of effort to get Luci onto your router. Gargoyle is browser-centric from the beginning. Require a novice to ssh into the router type some arcane commands and [poof] there goes much of Gargoyle's appeal. Its just become a newer Luci with some netfilter mods.

Gargoyle as a counterpoint to flexible-source dd-wrt is something that OpenWrt desperately needs: ready-to-go feature-rich firmware & an easy web interface.
TP-Link WDR3600 v1.1 running 1.5.10+ L10n-English (Built 20130922 - OpenWrt r38093)
TP-Link WDR4300 running 1.5.10+ i18n-English (Built 20131010 - OpenWrt r38286)

https://github.com/BashfulBladder/gargoyle-plugins/wiki

db90h
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:37 pm

Re: Gargoyle as OpenWrt package

Post by db90h »

I completely agree with you on OpenWrt. I am the founder of X-Wrt, though it's now a bit deprecated.

It seems, perhaps due to your work, OpenWrt has changed a bit.

First, LuCI is now included in the images they distribute.

Second, they have included the old X-Wrt packages (which aren't even updated for 802.11n) in the trunk package repository as the webif package. It is funny, as I never could get them to include X-Wrt back when it was actually viable. Oh well.

Given these developments, perhaps someday they will want to include Gargoyle as a package, who knows. I'm not sure if that'd be good or bad for you, but since times are changing, it is a possibility!

Eric
Site Admin
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:14 pm

Re: Gargoyle as OpenWrt package

Post by Eric »

Sorry it took a while to get back to this post. There are in fact a couple of really critical kernel patches, which can't be included as packages. I initially tried to keep everything installable as a package, but the advantages of custom kernel modules outweighed this.

In order to use quotas, there is a custom iptables module that is necessary. Also, the search/web monitoring features depend on a custom module. Wireless bridging requires arpnat, which is also a custom module. URL matching and time matching also require custom modules.

Modules can be compiled and distributed as packages, but the catch is that they need to match the kernel version EXACTLY or they don't work. So unless the version of openwrt is compiled on exactly the same revision as the package there will be problems. So, it's better to just say that this doesn't work, than deal with a situation where most of the time the packages will fail due to version mismatch.

I had a really bad experience trying to get any code incorporated into OpenWrt. My initial plan was to submit all the dependent packages that weren't necessarily Gargoyle specific submitted upstream. I wrote the original version of the dynamic dns scripts package that OpenWrt is using (though it's been modified since). They eventually incorporated it, but the complete lack of communication I experienced made me shy away from submitting anything upstream again. When I re-wrote my version of the dns scripts package as a binary with more features (https support, meta-variables, regular expressions for validating updates) I didn't bother to send it upstream and saved myself the headache.

db90h
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:37 pm

Re: Gargoyle as OpenWrt package

Post by db90h »

Thanks for responding in depth Eric! As I evaluated Gargoyle, I eventually came to the conclusion that your own distribution is preferred anyway for the reasons you list and more.

You are not the first developer to be disillusioned with OpenWrt's culture. They complain about lack of developer resources, but shun new developers every chance they get :o. I could rant about it endlessly, and in fact I have ;).

Gargoyle is what I had always envisioned was possible, and I hope you continue to find time to work on it.

I believe you can pick up support from a lot of developers that have been disillusioned with OpenWrt. It's really nice work you've done, and there is no end.

I am currently customizing your firmware for a client. As I work with it, if I do develop any patches worthy of inclusion, I will send them your way for review.

veeraragavan_n
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:20 pm

Re: Gargoyle as OpenWrt package

Post by veeraragavan_n »

What you say is very true about openwrt & gargoyle! But I guess it is doable if you wanted to have an advanced & beginner option. For advanced update luci & for beginner update gargoyle & default to that instead. If in case the beginner or advanced users wanna upgrade(or downgrade) they have the option to swap out packages. Gargoyle as a package is still very attractive to me. If I can set it up at home so that my dad can use the gargoyle interface & I can use the luci UI on the same router nothing can beat that. Don't you agree?

Post Reply