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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
