Re: RFC: ipw3945
On Sunday 12 November 2006 20:46, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> I don't want to have ipw* build with kernel-headers, but with iee80211
> extra package.
>
> There are basically two reasons for this:
>
> 0. Currently the ieee80211 headers in mainline are recent enough to
> allow ipw* compiled against it. This may change again in
> future, hence I compile them all the time against ieee80211.
Who cares about the unseen future. Users only care about now. Once ipw3945 is
merged into mainline, they no longer have to run multiple post-install
commands to enable their hardware.
Your proposal requires that they first upgrade the ieee80211 stack of their
running kernel (which can get messy) and only then can they enable support
for ipw3945.
My proposal is we allow them to use the in kernel stack for as long as its API
remains compatible with what ipw3945 requires.
>
> 1. The ipw3945 package as it is now is anyway just a "temporary"
> package, because once it gets merged in mainline, the majority of
> users are going to use it there.
Thats right, so no point in over-engineering it just for this short period.
>
> After the merge into mainline, the ipw3945 is usefull for people
> which do want newer ipw* drivers with normal, non development
> kernels. From this time on, ieee80211 is required anyway.
It is not merged in mainline yet, so your argument about ipw3945 requiring a
newer ieee80211 stack than in 2.6.18 (which will be etch's kernel choice,
iirc) is not relevant yet.
Kel.
Reply to: