Pros of lede

• More comprehensive and feature-rich, with a wider range of supported devices
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Better documentation and user guides

Cons of lede

• Potentially more complex for beginners due to its extensive features
• May require more system resources due to its broader scope

Code comparison

lede:

./scripts/feeds update -a
./scripts/feeds install -a
make menuconfig
make -j$(nproc) V=s

nanopi-openwrt:

./scripts/feeds update -a
./scripts/feeds install -a
make menuconfig
make -j$(($(nproc) + 1)) V=s

The code snippets show similar build processes, with lede using $(nproc) for parallel compilation, while nanopi-openwrt uses $(($(nproc) + 1)), potentially utilizing one additional thread.

nanopi-openwrt is specifically tailored for NanoPi devices, offering a more focused and potentially optimized experience for these boards. It may be easier to set up and use for NanoPi owners due to its specialized nature.

lede, on the other hand, provides a more versatile platform supporting a wide range of devices and use cases. It offers more customization options and features, making it suitable for advanced users and diverse hardware configurations.

Pros of ImmortalWrt

• More comprehensive support for a wider range of devices and architectures
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Enhanced security features and optimizations

Cons of ImmortalWrt

• Higher complexity and steeper learning curve for beginners
• Potentially more resource-intensive due to additional features

Code Comparison

NanoPi-OpenWrt:

./scripts/feeds update -a
./scripts/feeds install -a
make menuconfig
make -j1 V=s

ImmortalWrt:

./scripts/feeds update -a
./scripts/feeds install -a
make defconfig
make menuconfig
make -j$(nproc) V=s

The main difference in the build process is that ImmortalWrt includes an additional make defconfig step, which sets up a default configuration before customization. ImmortalWrt also utilizes all available CPU cores for compilation with $(nproc), potentially speeding up the build process on multi-core systems.

Both projects are based on OpenWrt, but ImmortalWrt offers a more feature-rich and actively maintained distribution. NanoPi-OpenWrt focuses specifically on NanoPi devices, while ImmortalWrt supports a broader range of hardware. Users should consider their specific needs and hardware compatibility when choosing between the two projects.

Pros of build

• Supports a wider range of ARM-based single-board computers and devices
• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Comprehensive documentation and community support

Cons of build

• Larger codebase and potentially more complex setup process
• May require more system resources due to its broader scope

Code Comparison

build:

./compile.sh \
    BOARD=nanopi-r2s \
    BRANCH=current \
    RELEASE=bullseye \
    BUILD_MINIMAL=yes \
    BUILD_DESKTOP=no

nanopi-openwrt:

./scripts/build.sh \
    -d nanopi-r2s \
    -o openwrt \
    -v snapshot

Summary

While build offers broader device support and more active development, nanopi-openwrt provides a more focused solution specifically for NanoPi devices running OpenWrt. The build project may require more resources and have a steeper learning curve, but it offers greater flexibility and community support. nanopi-openwrt, on the other hand, presents a simpler, more streamlined approach for users specifically interested in running OpenWrt on NanoPi hardware.