• State Verified Answer
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 74 subscribers
  • Views 900 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (1) Download All
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 322133
Options

Matter - Openthread Boarder Router

AMarch

I have a quick question in the open thread board router documentation.
Before compiling the border router there are the steps

cd ot-br-posix
git pull --unshallow
git checkout 1813352

What about this checkout makes it "compatible".
Is this the last version tested known to work with the Matter (Thread) Examples?

It is assumed the latest version will just not operate correctly?

Thanks
A M

Parents
  • 0

    Ah, and it won't build without error. Maybe someone should clone ot-br-posix on a rasp pi and check it that works.

  • 0 in reply to AMarch

    Hi,

    What about this checkout makes it "compatible".
    Is this the last version tested known to work with the Matter (Thread) Examples?

    This is the version of the ot-br-posix repository that has been tested with the version of the nRF Connect SDK that the documentation is for.

    It is assumed the latest version will just not operate correctly?

    The latest version will most likely work as well, but as we have not tested it we cannot guarantee that it will work.

    Which Raspberry Pi do you have, and how large is the SD card?

    AMarch said:
    Ah, and it won't build without error.

    Please share the log.

    Best regards,
    Marte

  • 0 in reply to Marte Myrvold

    Ah yes, details help. 
    So this is a Raspberry pi 4, 4Gig, with a 16Gig card running Raspberry Pi OS Lite (64-bit). This is the bookworm release 2023-12-11

    I hope to enclose a zip file containing 3 text files. They are a bit large and wordy. 
    The first file "01_failure.txt" shows the steps I took to clone the repo and checkout the version. Following this is the bootstrap. The very end shows the directory extraction name different from the one the script tries to enter.

    The second file "02_pass_after_rename.txt" shows the steps I used to fix the problem by re-naming the folder. Then the bootstrap is started and completes as expected. The build wasn't completely captured.
     
    The third file "03_build_failure.txt" shows the attempt to compile the program using the setup script. The end of this file shows the error out. 

    None of this fails with the latest clone, so ... not a big deal, except if I follow the website instructions, I run into this. Hard to believe these simple steps would pass on another machine, but what do I know.

    logset.zip

    A. M.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Marte Myrvold

    Ah yes, details help. 
    So this is a Raspberry pi 4, 4Gig, with a 16Gig card running Raspberry Pi OS Lite (64-bit). This is the bookworm release 2023-12-11

    I hope to enclose a zip file containing 3 text files. They are a bit large and wordy. 
    The first file "01_failure.txt" shows the steps I took to clone the repo and checkout the version. Following this is the bootstrap. The very end shows the directory extraction name different from the one the script tries to enter.

    The second file "02_pass_after_rename.txt" shows the steps I used to fix the problem by re-naming the folder. Then the bootstrap is started and completes as expected. The build wasn't completely captured.
     
    The third file "03_build_failure.txt" shows the attempt to compile the program using the setup script. The end of this file shows the error out. 

    None of this fails with the latest clone, so ... not a big deal, except if I follow the website instructions, I run into this. Hard to believe these simple steps would pass on another machine, but what do I know.

    logset.zip

    A. M.

Children
  • +1 in reply to AMarch

    Hi,

    Which version of nRF Connect SDK are you using? I see that you mention commit 1813352 in your text, which is the commit used in nRF Connect SDK v2.1.0. If you are using a newer version of the SDK this might explain the problem. In v2.4 and v2.5 you should use commit 9185bda.

    You can see which version of the documentation you are viewing at the top right corner of the page:

    Or if you are using the new TechDocs you can see it directly under the title of the page:

    Best regards,
    Marte

  • 0 in reply to Marte Myrvold

    Ah, that would make sense then. It seems when you search for links and go directly from search you can end up on versions of instructions you don't expect.  That probably isn't the first time it would bite me. My fault, I guess.
    At least it is a logical solution and isn't "magic" or a "bad web page". 

Related
Terms of service