Re: [Ipw2100-devel] debian, ipw2200 and wlan0
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:34:22PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Previously Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:11:28AM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > The default interface name of the ipw2X00 driver is, has always been and
> > > will continue to be, eth%d.
> > It is and has always been eth%d for a stupid reason. That's why I
> > changed it to wlan%d in the debian official package.
> And here I thought Debian was a distribution which did not needlessly
> change upstream policies.
Debian is a distribution which tries to provide good software, implying
changes if necessary. Wireless interfaces should be called wlan%d, not
eth%d, and upstream doesn't want to change because "There are fewer
compatability issues with existing distributions by defaulting to eth%d
vs. wlan%d." 
Debian does support wlan%d interfaces without any known problem. If
there were any, I'd have gotten bug reports about it.
On the other hand, i know some people annoyed by the eth%d default for
> You are aware that a) that will mean all existing documentation on the
> ipw2100 and ipw2200 drivers will not work for Debian users
The ipw2200 documentation in Debian is updated to fit Debian's
> and b) that when the drivers is merged into the mainline kernel people will
> no longer use the seperate ipw2100/ipw2200 packages and suddenly have their
> system break because the device will use its standard name again?
I'll encourage Debian kernel maintainers to make the adequate changes.
As I said earlier, Debian is also about providing good software, making
additional changes from upstream if necessary, and I think Debian should
generally push the use of wlan%d name for wireless interfaces instead of
the upstream defaults, and try to push upstream to make the changes as
PS: Why bringing that on debian-devel instead of filing a bug first, if
you're so annoyed ?
 http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=9651220 ;
there also have been numerous messages asking for a change of the
default value on the list.