Re: ancient ieee80211/ipw2200 drivers in recent kernel (2.6.14)
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:15:10AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 04 November 2005 09:50, Sven Luther wrote:
> > We plan to change that though with the new external kernel module
> > policy, and will probably add the building of a real .udeb into said
> > policy. If this plan goes well, the external module .udebs will
> > probably be there *before* the kernel .udebs in general :)
>
> Sven, this really is another example of an extremely cheap shot, even with
> the :)
Oh, come on, this will indeed be the case, so why shouldn't speak about it ?
> You are again jumping on your hobbyhorse here and implying that d-i is
> stupid and should really change the way kernel udebs are being build,
> only a few days after I've asked you not to keep on repeating that issue
> over and over again.
Well, i think the way the kernel .udebs should change, and have repeated that
often enough, but really didn't include any such claim here. Also notice that
joeyh's reply was much more reasoned and open than any of your "let's bash
sven" kind of replies, so where is the problem ?
> We know the issue exists; we've discussed it extensively in the past;
> we've then concluded that there are some major issues to be solved. You
> are really not helping this go forward by constantly referring to the
> issue. You are only getting people annoyed at you which will at best
> delay _any_ implementation of what you want to achieve and at worst lead
> to you being completely ignored by the people you seek to influence by
> these comments.
Bah, if you want to hide yourself from reality, my other post was only to know
when would be a good time for *me* to look at the issue and not be disruptive,
as i certainly don't enjoy doing work which is then reverted without notice
with disdainful coments, or writing pacthes which smolder in the BTS for years
until they are obsoleted.
And notice that it would probably have taken you *less* time to implement some
kind of automated rebuild of all arches scheme than it would have taken you to
be angry at me. I discussed this selfsame issue with joeyh in helsinki, and he
told me it would be no major problem to do so, and be quick and easy, which is
why i proposed to do this post-beta1 when 2.6.14 will be the d-i kernel. What
could be wrong with that ? Especially as wrong as to get me your constant
bashing. I really don't get this.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: