Re: RFC: ipw3945
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> I don't want to have ipw* build with kernel-headers, but with iee80211
> extra package.
Argh!
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
This is all *very* hypothetical. In fact, I believe the exact
contrary: ieee80211 itself should be merged into the mainline, and
ipw3945 will continue to build against linux-headers in all cases, and
perhaps against ieee80211 by cheer luck. From what I understood,
there are competing wireless stacks being merged into the mainline
slowly, so would I be Intel, I would track the mainline.
Both of your reasons certainly do not apply to etch, so perhaps these
questions should be considered post-etch?
It strikes me that you insist on depending on ieee80211 for
hypothetical reasons when: 1) this package was removed from testing 2)
the packaging is a mess, which makes it hard to e.g. support
Xen-Vserver kernel headers 3) it works like a charm without! :-)
The rationale you invoke is that a new upstream release *might* require
it: perhaps we can start adding the dependency when that happens and we
can't workaround it?
This is especially true if you claim ipw3945 is temporary, and it
builds fine with linux-headers right now: perhaps we can rely on that
until it's merged into the mainline instead of going through the hoops
of fixing ieee80211 for a temporary ipw3945 package?
Finally, if both works, then perhaps you might to simply Suggest
ieee80211 stuff instead of having a hard dependency on it?
Also, and in all cases, please note that building an ipw3945 module
package is far easier when you /don't/ have to bother building or
installing an ieee80211 package first.
> > Daniel, do you mind us uploading an ipw3945 package? Or would you
> > rather prefer co-maintenance under, say, a SVN repository on Alioth?
> In the last few days, I was busy with legal issues after my fathers dead
> (heritaging et al). I'm now working again at the packages and uploading
> them.
Well, you're not exactly answering my question. It's good to hear that
you have more time now, but I still would like to know if the packages
could please be handed by a team so that 1) packages be uploaded now
while you're busy fixing ieee80211 2) someone happens to be available
to fix important bugs when the others are busy.
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
Reply to: