Re: Debianized ndiswrapper-source is better on SourceForge
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:12:13 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> All:
>
> 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:
> http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/debian/
> It contains:
> ndiswrapper-source_0.12-1_i386.deb
> 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.
Reply to: