The WEBUI's string is "DD-WRT v3.0-r52894 std (06/06/23)"! I found that "nvram get os_date" was "May 15 2023", while "nvram get os_version" was "52894".
Should we open a ticket on line 123 of defaults.c?
And if "os_date" is not to be changed, should we introduce a nvram value "svn_date" or "build_date" which equals to BUILD_DATE?? A corresponding read-only value in /proc might also be useful. _________________ Router: Asus RT-N18U (rev. A1)
Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper! May the Force and farces be with you!
Should we open a ticket on line 123 of defaults.c?
No.
mwchang wrote:
And if "os_date" is not to be changed, should we introduce a nvram value "svn_date" or "build_date" which equals to BUILD_DATE?? A corresponding read-only value in /proc might also be useful.
Joined: 26 Mar 2013 Posts: 1858 Location: Hung Hom, Hong Kong
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:09 Post subject:
blkt wrote:
mwchang wrote:
And if "os_date" is not to be changed, should we introduce a nvram value "svn_date" or "build_date" which equals to BUILD_DATE?? A corresponding read-only value in /proc might also be useful.
Pointless.
I agree SVN_REVISION (and hence "os_version") indirectly indicates the build date of DD-WRT. But shouldn't both "os_date" and "os_version" refer to the version of DD-WRT, not the Linux kernel?
The only concern about changing NVRAM "os_date" is possibly this:
Also, loginprompt should have resided in /etc (instead of /tmp) as a read-only file. Anyway, it's not that important. _________________ Router: Asus RT-N18U (rev. A1)
Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper! May the Force and farces be with you!