I wrote last year about my experience with making my first PCB using JLCPCB. I’ve now got 5 of the boards in production around my house, and another couple assembled on my desk for testing. I also did a much simpler board to mount a GPS module on my MapleBoard - basically just with a suitable DIP connector and mount point for the GPS module. At that point I ended up having to pay for shipping; not being in a hurry I went for the cheapest option which mean the total process took 2 weeks from order until it arrived. Still not bad for under $8!
Just before Christmas I discovered that JLCPCB had expanded their SMT assembly option to beyond the Chinese market, and were offering coupons off (but even without that had much, much lower assembly/setup fees than anywhere else I’d seen). Despite being part of LCSC the parts library can be a bit limited (partly it seems there’s nothing complex to assemble such as connectors), with a set of “basic” components without setup fee and then “extended” options which have a $3 setup fee (because they’re not permanently loaded, AIUI).
To test out the service I decided to revise my IoT board. First, I’ve used a few for 12V LED strip control which has meant the 3.3V LDO is working harder than ideal, so I wanted to switch (ha ha) to a buck converter. I worked back from the JLCPCB basic parts list and chose an MP2451, which had a handy data sheet with an example implementation. I also upgraded the ESP module to an ESP32-WROOM - I’ve had some issues with non-flickery PWM on the ESP8266 and the ESP32 has hardware PWM. I also have some applications the Bluetooth would be useful for. Once again I turned to KiCad to draw the schematic and lay out the board. I kept the same form factor for ease, as I knew I could get a case for it. The more complex circuitry was a bit harder to lay out in the same space, and the assembly has a limitation of being single sided which complicates things further, but the fact it was being done for me meant I could drop to 0603 parts.
All-in-all I ended up with 17 parts for the board assembly, with the ESP32 module and power connectors being my responsibility (JLCPCB only have the basic ESP32 chip and I did not feel like trying to design a PCB antenna). I managed to get everything except the inductor from the basic library, which kept costs down. Total cost for 10 boards, parts, assembly, shipping + customs fees was just under $29 which is amazing value to me. What’s even better is that the DFM (design for manufacturing) checks they did realised I’d placed the MP2451 the wrong way round and they automatically rotated it 180° for me. Phew!
The order was placed in the middle of December and arrived just before New Year - again, about 2 weeks total time end to end. Very impressive. Soldering the ESP32 module on was more fiddly than the ESP-07, but it all worked first time with both 5V + 12V power supplies, so I’m very pleased with the results.
Being able to do cheap PCB assembly is a game changer for me. There are various things I feel confident enough to design for my own use that I’d never be able to solder up myself; and for these prices it’s well worth a try. I find myself currently looking at some of the basic STM32 offerings (many of them in JLCPCB’s basic component range) and pondering building a slightly more advanced dev board around one. I’m sure my PCB design will cause those I know in the industry to shudder, but don’t worry, I’ve no plans to do this other than for my own amusement!
As a reader of Planet Debian I see a bunch of updates at the start of each month about what people are up to in terms of their Free Software activities. I’m not generally active enough in the Free Software world to justify a monthly report, and this year in particular I’ve had a bunch of other life stuff going on, but I figured it might be interesting to produce a list of stuff I did over the course of 2019. I’m pleased to note it’s longer than I expected.
I’m not a big conference attendee; I’ve never worked somewhere that paid travel/accommodation for Free Software conferences so I end up covering these costs myself. That generally means I go to local things and DebConf. This year was no exception to that; I attended BelFOSS, an annual free software conference held in Belfast, as well as DebConf19 in Curitiba, Brazil. (FOSDEM was at an inconvenient time this year for me, or I’d have made it to that as well.)
Most of my contributions to Free software happen within Debian.
As part of the Data Protection Team I responded to various minor requests for advice from within the project.
The Debian Keyring was possibly my largest single point of contribution. We’re in a roughly 3 month rotation of who handles the keyring updates, and I handled 2019.03.24, 2019.06.25, 2019.08.23, 2019.09.24 + 2019.12.23.
I managed to get binutils-xtensa-lx106 + gcc-xtensa-lx106 packages (1 + 1) for cross building ESP8266 firmware uploaded in time for the buster release, as well as several updates throughout the year (2, 3 + 2, 3, 4). There was a hitch over some disagreements on the package naming, but it conforms with the generally accepted terms used for this toolchain.
Last year I ended up fixing an RC bug in ghdl, so this year having been the last person to touch the package I did a couple of minor uploads (0.35+git20181129+dfsg-3, 0.35+git20181129+dfsg-4). I’m no longer writing any VHDL as part of my job so my direct interest in this package is limited, but I’ll continue to try and fix the easy things when I have time.
Although I requested the package I originally uploaded it for, l2tpns, to be removed from Debian (#929610) I still vaguely maintain libcli, which saw a couple of upstream driven uploads (1.10.0-1, 1.10.2-1).
OpenOCD is coming up to 3 years since its last stable release, but I did a couple (0.10.0-5, 0.10.0-6) of minor uploads this year. I’ve promised various people I’ll do a snapshot upload and I’ll try to get that into experimental at some point. libjaylink, a dependency, also saw a couple of minor uploads (0.1.0-2, 0.1.0-3).
I pushed an updated version of libtorrent into experimental (0.13.8-1), as a pre-requisite for getting rtorrent updated. Once that had passed through NEW I uploaded 0.13.8-2 and then rtorrent 0.9.8-1.
sdcc was the only package I did sponsored uploads of this year - (3.8.0+dfsg-2, 3.8.0+dfsg-3). I don’t have time to take over maintainership of this package fully, but sigrok-firmware-fx2lafw depends on it to build so I upload for Gudjon and try to help him out a bit.
In terms of personal projects I finally pushed my ESP8266 Clock to the outside world (and wrote it up). I started learning Go and as part of that wrote gomijia, a tool to passively listen for Bluetooth LE broadcasts from Xiaomi Mijia devices and transmits them over MQTT. I continued to work on onak, my OpenPGP key server, adding support for the experimental v5 key format, dkg’s abuse resistant keystore proposal and finally merged in support for signature verification. It’s due a release, but the documentation really needs improved before I’d be happy to do that.
Back when picolibc was newlib-nano I had a conversation with Keith Packard about getting the ESP8266 newlib port (largely by Max Filippov based on the Tensilica work) included. Much time has passed since then, but I finally got time to port this over and test it this month. I’m hopeful the
picolibc-xtensa-lx106-elf package will appear in Debian at some point in the next few months.
As part of my work at Titan IC I did some work on Snort3, largely on improving its support for hardware offload accelerators (ignore the fact my listed commits were all last year, Cisco generally do a bunch of squashed updates to the tree so the original author doesn’t always show).
Software in the Public Interest
While I haven’t sat on the board of SPI since 2015 I’m still the primary maintainer of the membership website (with Martin Michlmayr as the other active contributor). The main work carried out this year was fixing up some issues seen with the upgrade from Stretch to Buster.
I talked about my home automation, including my use of Home Assistant, at NIDC 2019, and again at DebConf with more emphasis on the various aspects of Debian that I’ve used throughout the process. I had a couple of other sessions at DebConf with the Data Protection and Keyring teams. I did a brief introduction to Reproducible Builds for BLUG in October.
I had a one liner accepted to systemd to make my laptop keyboard work out of the box. I fixed up Xilinx XRT to be able to build .debs for Debian (rather than just Ubuntu), have C friendly header files and clean up some GCC 8.3 warnings. I submitted a fix to Home Assistant to accept 202 as a successful REST notification response. And I had a conversation on IRC which resulted in a tmux patch to force detach (literally I asked how do to this thing and I think Colin had whipped up a patch before the conversation was even over).
I voted this week. Twice, as it happens (vote early, vote often). This post is about my vote for Debian’s General Resolution: Init systems and systemd. You probably want to skip it, but I thought I’d write it up anyway.
[ 1 ] Choice 5: H: Support portability, without blocking progress [ 2 ] Choice 4: D: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress [ 3 ] Choice 7: G: Support portability and multiple implementations [ 4 ] Choice 3: A: Support for multiple init systems is Important [ 5 ] Choice 2: B: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives [ 6 ] Choice 1: F: Focus on systemd [ 7 ] Choice 6: E: Support for multiple init systems is Required [ 8 ] Choice 8: Further Discussion
Firstly, I’ve re-ordered the ballot in the order I ranked things in. I find the mix of numbers and letters that don’t match up confusing, and I think the ordering on the ballot indicates the bias of whoever did the ordering. I don’t think that’s intended to be anything other than helpful, but I’d have kept the numbers and letters matching in the expected order.
I made use of Ian Jackson’s voting guide (and should disclose that he and I have had conversations about this matter where he kindly took time to explain to me his position and rationale). However I’m more pro-systemd than he is, and also lazier, so hopefully this post is useful in some fashion rather than a simple rehash of anyone else’s logic.
I ranked Further Discussion last. I want this to go away. I feel it’s still sucking too much of the project’s time.
E was easy to rank as second last. While I want to support people who want to run non-systemd setups I don’t want to force us as a project to have to shoehorn that support in where it’s not easily done.
F third last. While I welcome the improvements brought by systemd I’m wary of buying into any ecosystem completely, and it has a lot of tentacles which will make any future move much more difficult if we buy in wholesale (and make life unnecessarily difficult for people who want to avoid systemd, and I’ve no desire to do that).
On the flip side I think those who want to avoid systemd should be able to do so within Debian. I don’t buy the argument that you can just fork and drop systemd there, it’s an invasive change that makes it much, much harder to produce a derivative system. So it’s one of those things we should care about as a project. (If you hate systemd so much you don’t want even its libraries on your system I can’t help you.)
I debated over my ordering for
D. I am in favour of portability principles, and I’m happy to make a statement that if someone is prepared to do the work of sorting out non-systemd support for a package then as a project we should take that. I read that as it’s not my responsibility as a maintainer to do these things (though obviously if I can easily do so I will), but that I shouldn’t get in the way of someone else doing so. As someone who has built things on top of Debian I subscribe to the idea that it should be suitable glue for such things (as well as something I can run directly on my own machines), so I favoured
G. I deferred to Ian here; I’d rather systemd wasn’t the de facto result despite best intentions, which results in placing
G first of the two.
I wrote a month ago about getting native IPv6 over fibre. Given that this week RIPE announced they’d run out of IPv4 allocations and today my old connection was turned off, it seems an appropriate point to look at my v4 vs v6 usage over a month (as a reminder, I used my new FTTP connection for v6 only over the past month, with v4 still going over my old FTTC connection). I’m actually surprised at the outcome:
That’s telling me I received 1.8 times as much traffic via IPv6 over the past month as I did over IPv4. Even discounting my backups (the 2 v6 peaks), which could account for up to half of that, that means IPv6 and IPv4 are about equal. That’s with all internal networks doing both and no attempt at traffic shaping between them - everything’s free to pick their preference.
I don’t have a breakdown of what went where, but if you run a network and you’re not v6 enabled, why not? From my usage at least you’re getting towards being in the minority.
Last week I changed ISP. My primary reason was to get native IPv6 at home. As a side effect I’ve lowered my monthly costs and moved from VDSL2 (Fibre To The Cabinet/FTTC) to GPON (Fibre To The Premises/FTTP). But trust me when I say the thing that prompted the move was the desire for native v6.
First, some words of thanks to my previous ISP. I was with MCL Services who have been absolutely fantastic; no issues with service, and responsive support when I had queries. The problem was that they’re a Gamma reseller, and Gamma are showing no signs of enabling v6 (I had Daniel poke them several times, because even a rough ETA would have kept me hanging around to see if they made good on it).
What caused me to even start looking elsewhere was BT mailshotting me about the fact I’m in a Fibre First area and FTTP was thus now available to me. They dangled some pretty attractive pricing in front of me (£50/month for 300M/50M). BT have enabled v6 across their consumer network (and should be applauded for that), but unfortunately don’t provide a static v6 range as part of that. One of the things I wanted was to give my internal hosts static IPs. A dynamic range doesn’t allow for that. So BT was a no.
Conveniently enough there’d been a thread on the debian-uk mailing list about server-friendly ISPs. I’m not looking to run services on the end of my broadband line - as long as I can SSH in and provided a basic HTTPS endpoint for some remote services to call in that’s perfect - but a mention of Aquiss came up as a competent option. I was already aware of them as I know several existing users, and I knew they use Entanet to provide pieces of their service. Enta are long time IPv6 supporters, so I took a look. And discovered that I could move to an equivalent service to what I was on, except over fibre and for cheaper (because there was no need to pay for phone line rental I wasn’t using). No brainer.
So last Thursday an engineer from Openreach turned up. Like last time the job was bigger than expected (I think the Openreach database has just failed to record the fact the access isn’t where they think it is). Also like last time they didn’t just go away, but instead arranged for another engineer to turn up to help with the two-man bit of the job, and got it all done that day. The only worrying bit was when my existing line went down - FTTP is a brand new install rather than a migration - but that turned out to be because they run a new hybrid cable from the pole with both fibre and copper on it. Once the new cable was spliced back in the existing connection came back fine. Total outage was just over an hour - something to be aware of if you’re trying to work from home during the install like I was. Thankfully I have enough spare data on my Three contract that I was able to keep working.
A picture of the ONT as installed is above; it’s a new style one with no battery backup and a single phone port + ethernet port. I had it placed beside my existing master socket, because that’s where everything is currently situated, but I was given the option to have it placed elsewhere. There’s a wall-wart for power, so you do need a free socket. The ethernet port provides a GigE connection (even though my line is currently only configured for 80M/20M), and it does PPPoE - no VLANs or anything required, though you do need the username/password from your ISP for CHAP authentication, which looks exactly like a normal ADSL username/password.
I rejigged my OpenWRT setup so I had a spare port on the HomeHub 5A, then configured up a “wan2” interface with the PPPoE login details and IPv6 enabled:
config interface 'wan2' option ifname 'eth0.100' option proto 'pppoe' option username 'noodles@fttp' option password 'gimmev6fttp' option ipv6 '1' option ip6prefix '2001:xxxx:yyyy:zz00::/56' option defaultroute 0
(I’d put the spare port into VLAN 100, hence
For the moment I’m using the old line for IPv4 (I have a 30 day notice on it) and the new line for just IPv6, hence setting
0. I actually end up with more IPv6 traffic than I’d expect (though there’d be more if my TV did v6 for Netflix):
I had to do a bunch of internal reconfiguration as well; I’d previously used a Hurricane Electric tunnel, but only enabled it for certain hosts (I couldn’t saturate my connection over the tunnel). Now I have native IPv6 I wanted everything configured up properly, with internal DNS properly sorted so internal traffic tried to use v6 where possible. That means my MQTT broker is doing v6 (though unfortunately not for my ESP8266 devices), and I’m accessing my Home Assistant instance over v6 (needed
server_host: ::0 in the
http configuration section to make it listen on v6, and stops it listening on v4. Not a problem for me as I front it with an SSL proxy that can do both). Equally SSH to all my internal hosts and containers is now over v6.
Of course, ultimately there’s no real external visible indication of the fact things are using IPv6, even for external bits. Which is exactly as it should be.
subscribe via RSS