2011-07-15 10:37 <kyak> jow_laptop: hi! Would it be possible to accept this patch for busybox: https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/9695 ?
2011-07-15 10:37 <jow_laptop> kyak: yes it would, but give me some time
2011-07-15 10:37 <jow_laptop> I already have far too much stuff in the queue
2011-07-15 11:01 <jow_laptop> kyak: oh btw, I'll commit an mtd-utils update in a minute that will replace underscores in the packagenames with dashes, you'll need to update the Qi default config I assume
2011-07-15 11:01 <jow_laptop> e.g.  mtd-utils-flash_eraseall -> mtd-utils-flash-eraseall
2011-07-15 11:02 <jow_laptop> opkg does not like underscores there
2011-07-15 13:01 <kyak> jow_laptop: thanks for heads up, will do so
2011-07-15 13:05 <kyak> jow_laptop: btw, there is a problem with dejavu-font-ttf package
2011-07-15 13:06 <kyak> it had been splitted in several packages for each font, and each of these packages (like dejavu-fonts-ttf-DejaVuSans) is made dependant on dejavu-fonts-ttf package; but there is no such package as dejavu-fonts-ttf
2011-07-15 13:06 <kyak> so when someone tries to install these fonts later via opkg, it has dependency issues
2011-07-15 13:15 <kyak> probably the same problem exists for mtd-utils...
2011-07-15 13:17 <qi-bot> [commit] kyak: mtd-utils: replace underscores with dashes in the sub-package names (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/openwrt-packages/42badae
2011-07-15 13:18 <kyak> ah, perhaps not anymore after your latest commit..
2011-07-15 13:20 <jow_laptop> kyak: ah yes, will fix that one too
2011-07-15 13:27 <jow_laptop> kyak: should be fixed as well now
2011-07-15 13:27 <jow_laptop> the problem is that mirko always forgets to define an install section, therfore no physical .ipk is built
2011-07-15 13:58 <kyak> heh :)
2011-07-15 13:58 <kyak> ok, thanks
2011-07-15 14:00 <kyak> btw i assumed that physical ipk would build (with nothing but CONTROL files inside) even if there is no install section, as long as there is $(eval $(call BuildPackage...
2011-07-15 14:22 <wolfspraul> oops, back again
2011-07-15 14:23 <wolfspraul> maybe someone is working on it...
2011-07-15 14:23 <wolfspraul> I didn't do anything
2011-07-15 14:23 <wpwrak> that's what they all say ;-)
2011-07-15 14:23 <wolfspraul> but strange, it left with 'operation timed out'
2011-07-15 14:23 <wolfspraul> something strange, but it seems recovered by itself
2011-07-15 15:12 <qi-bot> The build was successfull, see images here: http://fidelio.qi-hardware.com/~xiangfu/compile-log/openwrt-xburst.full_system-07142011-1116/
2011-07-15 16:31 <wolfspraul> wpwrak: in tuxbrain's atben/atusb run, did the rf testing include rf performance testing too?
2011-07-15 16:31 <wolfspraul> I mean in terms of speed or antenna reach
2011-07-15 16:32 <wolfspraul> and if it did, did you see much differences between boards?
2011-07-15 16:33 <wpwrak> it included signal strength measurements, relative to a reference device (although i think the latter was actually from the production run - but we verified against one of the prototypes after)
2011-07-15 16:34 <wpwrak> some differences, but not a lot. i also don't know how stable the test environment itself was, with respect to obstacles, position/rotation, interference, etc.
2011-07-15 16:35 <wolfspraul> ok but it sounds like there weren't any clues that setting up a more rigid/restricted test environment for RF performance would be worth doing in the next run
2011-07-15 16:35 <wpwrak> plus there were two (one for each direction) unidirectional transfer tests, to check the frame loss
2011-07-15 16:36 <wpwrak> so far no clues that anything escaped. but the numbers aren't very large, so maybe we'll still find something
2011-07-15 16:36 <wpwrak> the atusb with a bad solder joint on the balun was properly identified by the spectrum test
2011-07-15 16:37 <wpwrak> the spectrum test is briefly explained in the "spectrum" section of http://downloads.qi-hardware.com/people/werner/wpan/prod/test.html#procedure
2011-07-15 16:37 <wolfspraul> 130 is not a bad number
2011-07-15 16:37 <wolfspraul> usually you can assume that if you don't see something in a run of 250, you can safely scale up
2011-07-15 16:38 <wpwrak> i mean the boards that went to customers and are being used there
2011-07-15 16:38 <wolfspraul> that's because you will always find whatever new things as you scale, and random/rare/unexplained things, but they may not be worth the time to investigate further anyway
2011-07-15 16:38 <wpwrak> so we don't know yet if the tests found all the problems
2011-07-15 16:39 <wolfspraul> I think the fact that those 130 showed so few problems is a good sign
2011-07-15 16:39 <wolfspraul> that's a solid number
2011-07-15 16:39 <wpwrak> but they found at least that one thing that wasn't just a catastrophic system-wide failure
2011-07-15 16:40 <wolfspraul> with 10 or 20 you may overlook a serious manufacturing problem, but with 130 it's much less likely, and like I said, with 250 you are assumed to be (economically) safe
2011-07-15 16:40 <wpwrak> yes, i'd say the smt went quite well. the rotated chip and the missing resistor are clear smt mistakes. perhaps need to see if we can improve QC there.
2011-07-15 16:40 <wolfspraul> that's normal, can happen
2011-07-15 16:41 <wpwrak> there could also be additional SMT mistakes the tests wouldn't find. e.g., absence of a varistor. we could test for it, but that would need a fairly complex test rig
2011-07-15 16:41 <wolfspraul> aoi should catch that
2011-07-15 16:41 <wolfspraul> 'should' as it is most likely not used on such a small run and small smt shop
2011-07-15 16:42 <wpwrak> yeah, it's more a case for optical inspection than anything else
2011-07-15 16:43 <wpwrak> the balun with the one bad solder joint is actually one of the bits i felt the least confident about. the other was the usb connector, where i had even more doubts. but that one went perfectly, it seems.
2011-07-15 16:45 <wpwrak> (balun) the problem there is that the footprints recommended by the manufacturers barely touch the contacts. so i already extended them a bit beyond the most generous interpretation.
2011-07-15 16:47 <wpwrak> but i guess i can't complain with only 1/250 showing problems. there could be more with invisible problems, because there are several ground pins, and you can lose at least one of them without significant loss of function.
2011-07-15 16:49 <wpwrak> i have a bug in the silk screen of some components, including all the 0402. the outlines need to be pushed out a little further. or omitted. didn't cause any problems this time, but worth improving for the future.
2011-07-15 16:50 <wolfspraul> well sure, that all sounds reasonable. those things and improvements will never stop though.
2011-07-15 16:50 <wpwrak> and my smallest silkscreen text is at the limits of the printing process of the PCB house, making some things hard to read. again, nothing horrible, and probably not worth fixing on atben/atusb, but good to remember for the future.
2011-07-15 16:50 <wpwrak> yeah, there's always one more thing ;-))
2011-07-15 16:50 <wolfspraul> so once a problem is rare enough, it may not be worth economically to even track it down, because such rare problems will pop up forever
2011-07-15 16:51 <wolfspraul> it's manufacturing, so every piece is unique
2011-07-15 16:51 <wolfspraul> there is no point to hope for the perfect binary world one day, it will not come
2011-07-15 16:51 <wolfspraul> so you have to make economic decisions, not technical ones
2011-07-15 16:52 <wpwrak> we're already amazingly close to that perfect world, if you think of it :)
2011-07-15 17:17 <kristianpaul> wpwrak: http://elespectador.com/opinion/columna-284510-patentes-y-contenido-abierto
2011-07-15 17:23 <wpwrak> "publish to create prior art" isn't exactly a new concept ;-)
2011-07-15 17:23 <wpwrak> and i think it's a good one, yet one also has to understand its limitations
2011-07-15 17:25 <wpwrak> e.g., a patent may still be granted no matter how widely you disseminate your prior art. and it can still be upheld for a number of reasons, including your publication not being "visible" enough
2011-07-15 17:30 <kristianpaul> (isn't exactly a new concept) thats truth. maye be re-enforce it is what is worth
2011-07-15 17:30 <kristianpaul> (not being "visible" enough) yeah, i was afraid you think that as well.. i but i wanted a second opinion :-)
2011-07-15 17:32 <wpwrak> so, for example, if we disseminate some novel idea on the qi-hw list, would that count ? or in the Buga Journal of Applied Sciences, written in the local indigenous dialect ?
2011-07-15 17:33 <wpwrak> or maybe even in spanish - would that be enough to invalidate a US patent ?
2011-07-15 17:33 <kristianpaul> yeah...
2011-07-15 17:34 <wpwrak> so the problem with prior art is that it's no the existence of the idea that counts but the realistic possibility of knowing of it
2011-07-15 17:34 <kristianpaul> visibillity usually will mean mainline meadia, wich very good filtering what is not intented to be so public when is convient
2011-07-15 17:35 <kristianpaul> or may be university media is enought?..
2011-07-15 17:38 <wpwrak> technical news of the university of buga ?
2011-07-15 17:38 <wpwrak> or do you mean conference papers ?
2011-07-15 17:40 <kristianpaul> yeah, thats the point :-)
2011-07-15 17:43 <wpwrak> there's also the tricky question of whether online publications count or if it has to be printed
2011-07-15 17:44 <wpwrak> and if online publications count, how obscure can they be ? qi-hw planet ? kristianpaul's blog ? qi-bot's irc channel log ?
2011-07-15 17:45 <wpwrak> werner's blog on neo-existentialism and herbal medicine where by sheer accident something technical is dropped ?
2011-07-15 17:46 <wpwrak> but i think bringing those ideas out into the open is a good first step. better yet if they spread a little bit to other places than just the qi-hw list.
2011-07-15 17:47 <wpwrak> and also judges know about google. and google reads and indexes everything, including our hypothetical blog on herb lore.
2011-07-15 17:55 <wpwrak> whoa. darkness falls ... at 3 pm. that'll be a heck of a rain