Re: RFC: ipw3945
[Sorry for breaking a thread. CC the responses to me, I'm not on -mentors]
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Eh, that doesn't sound really useful. One never knows for sure what the
>> future brings.
>
> We are speaking only about the time where ipw3945 is not in mainline. I
> don't see any practical gain in using mainline headers now, dealing with
> problems there, and reverting to the extra headers later once it was
merged.
Why wouldn't you want to use mainline headers? Should I tell you what kind
of pains I went through to make ipw3945 modules built using your
ieee80211-source packages which have not been updated for 2.6.18 in spite
of it being in the archive for a month and a half now? Using default
headers is a solution far more robust and intuitive, I can't find any
reason *not* to use them to build the source.
> Yes. Besides the *important* ones I already told, the minors are about
> the Debian integration which is already arranged with waldi. The driver
> is packaged for main, not contrib, and binary modules will be provided
> through linux-modules-extra-2.6.
>
> Do not upload/sponsor/$whatever these packages, thanks.
Please either finally do something about it (instead of promising progress
"real soon now", as you did since August), or stop trying to block others
from working on it.
Best regards,
--
Jurij Smakov jurij@wooyd.org
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC
Reply to: