Re: Debianized ndiswrapper-source is better on SourceForge
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:12:13 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> Some of you have probably seen my gripes about ndiswrapper-source.
> I moved on past all that -- but upstream is debianizing it and
> it's better in many ways.
> The alternate location is:
> It contains:
> dated 25-Nov-2004.
Wow. Do you really have nothing better to do than post to d-d?
Use upstream's ndiswrapper packages if you like it so much. Stop
spamming debian lists with your incessant whining. You've already
proven yourself to be abusive, rude, and ignorant; yet you keep going.
I'm sure you're an inspiration to trolls everywhere.
> The one in the current Debian repository is dated 29-Dec-2004.
> The previous version was taken from upstream; the new version
> Debian has is a new packaging and it has several "issues"
> 1. On my machine, the version in Debian's repositories freezes
> my system (hard kernel lockup). The upstream version which
> does not.
Gee, the latest ndiswrapper has a bug. Downgrade to the one in
testing, or upgrade to the one I uploaded today. It's not the
end of the world. Perhaps you could even be helpful and let me
know whether rc2 hangs in the same way that rc1 does.
> 2. The version in Debian's repository fails to compile against
> 2.6.10, using Vanilla source or the Debian-patched source.
> It is missing some defines. The upstream succeeds.
I'm not sure wtf you're talking about, as I've run both rc1 and rc2
with 2.6.10. Perhaps you're referring to the one in testing (0.11)?
rc2 will migrate there in time.
> Those are the main issues. The rest are "my gripes."
> 3. The Debian one depends on modules-assistant, even though the
> README.Debian says installing with make-kpkg is the preferred
> way, and modules-assistant is an alternate method.
> (The packager includes some makefiles from /usr/share/modass).
module-assistant is a huge improvement over what people previously
had to do to compile kernel modules. It also allows me to cut more
code out of the package; it makes more sense to have packaging scripts
in one package (module-assistant), and include that, than to duplicate
code everywhere. See debhelper, cdbs, and other packages. Removing
module-assistant usage is a step backwards.
> 4. The upstream one includes ndiswrapper-utils in the
> ndiswrapper-source package. It's better.
Clearly, because you think it's better, who am I to argue?
> The new packager is I think admirably trying to make his
> package more like other *-source packages, and many others
> depend on modules-assistant, but I should point out alsa-source
> does not.
> #1 and #2 are a real pain in the butt. His well-meaning
> effort has really screwed up ndiswrapper-source. The upstream
> Debian package is much better.