Pros of lede

• More comprehensive OpenWrt distribution with a wider range of pre-configured packages
• Active community development and frequent updates
• Better support for various hardware platforms and devices

Cons of lede

• Larger codebase, which may lead to longer build times
• Potentially more complex configuration for beginners
• May include unnecessary packages for some users' needs

Code Comparison

Actions-OpenWrt (workflow file):

- name: Build OpenWrt
  id: build
  run: |
    cd openwrt
    make defconfig
    make download -j8
    find dl -size -1024c -exec ls -l {} \;
    make -j$(nproc) || make -j1 V=s

lede (build script):

#!/bin/bash
cd lede
./scripts/feeds update -a
./scripts/feeds install -a
make defconfig
make download -j8
make -j$(($(nproc) + 1)) V=s

The main difference is that Actions-OpenWrt focuses on GitHub Actions for building, while lede provides a more traditional build process. Actions-OpenWrt offers easier customization through workflow files, whereas lede provides a more comprehensive OpenWrt distribution with additional features and packages.

Pros of immortalwrt

• More comprehensive and feature-rich OpenWrt distribution
• Regularly updated with the latest patches and improvements
• Includes additional packages and optimizations for various devices

Cons of immortalwrt

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to navigate and modify
• May require more resources to build and run
• Less focused on GitHub Actions integration compared to Actions-OpenWrt

Code Comparison

Actions-OpenWrt:

- name: Compile the firmware
  id: compile
  run: |
    cd openwrt
    echo -e "$(nproc) thread compile"
    make -j$(nproc) || make -j1 || make -j1 V=s

immortalwrt:

#!/bin/bash
set -eu

[ -f feeds.conf.default ] && {
    mv feeds.conf.default feeds.conf.default.bak
    wget -O feeds.conf.default https://raw.githubusercontent.com/immortalwrt/immortalwrt/master/feeds.conf.default
}

The Actions-OpenWrt repository focuses on providing a GitHub Actions workflow for building OpenWrt firmware, while immortalwrt is a full OpenWrt distribution with its own set of modifications and improvements. Actions-OpenWrt is more suitable for users who want to quickly set up automated builds, while immortalwrt offers a more comprehensive and customized OpenWrt experience.

Pros of nanopi-openwrt

• Specifically optimized for NanoPi devices, potentially offering better performance and compatibility
• Includes pre-configured builds for various NanoPi models
• May have more targeted features and optimizations for ARM-based devices

Cons of nanopi-openwrt

• Limited to NanoPi devices, less versatile than Actions-OpenWrt
• Potentially smaller community and less frequent updates
• May lack some of the extensive customization options available in Actions-OpenWrt

Code Comparison

Actions-OpenWrt:

- name: Load custom configuration
  run: |
    [ -e $FEEDS_CONF ] && mv $FEEDS_CONF openwrt/feeds.conf.default
    [ -e $CONFIG_FILE ] && mv $CONFIG_FILE openwrt/.config
    chmod +x $DIY_P1_SH
    cd openwrt
    $GITHUB_WORKSPACE/$DIY_P1_SH

nanopi-openwrt:

make image PROFILE="friendlyarm_nanopi-r2s" PACKAGES="luci"

The Actions-OpenWrt repository provides a more flexible GitHub Actions workflow for building OpenWrt, allowing for custom configurations and scripts. In contrast, the nanopi-openwrt repository focuses on simplified build commands specifically for NanoPi devices.

While Actions-OpenWrt offers greater versatility and customization options for various devices, nanopi-openwrt provides a more streamlined approach for NanoPi users. The choice between the two depends on the specific hardware requirements and the level of customization needed.