Thanks for the PR! I haven't yet had time to review and test it, however I have one question: why do we want to keep old lwIP version around? I.e. why did you choose to add it side by side with the old one instead of replacing?

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@40c159f). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #3206   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   27.57%           
=========================================
  Files             ?       20           
  Lines             ?     3655           
  Branches          ?      678           
=========================================
  Hits              ?     1008           
  Misses            ?     2469           
  Partials          ?      178

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 40c159f...79cd3f9. Read the comment docs.

My humble opinion states that it is early for total and definitive lwip replacement :)
Further testing is needed because so many things rely on lwip (I alone did not cover all libraries using udp/tcp/...).

The current PR sets current-lwip-v1.4 as the default version. What could be done is to set v2 as the default version, leaving v1.4 still available just in case, at least for a little while.

Also, for lwip-v2 to compile, a great deal of lwip-v1.4-include-files.h are needed (because of blobary-structures bindings).

now works with #3001 (sntp was missing)

hi, what's the status of this?

Hi,

@igrr (and I) prefer waiting for release 2.4.

I would like to mention here that I made a new pull request (#3362) for open source lwIP. Its code is updated but above all the integration is different: it uses submodule. Discussion is needed before I close here.

closing in favour of #3783