On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 06:22:17PM +0900, Horms wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:09:54AM +0100, Maximilian Attems wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 06:51:44AM +0000, Horms wrote: > > > Mikhail Gusarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > You ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > > > > H> If you know more, please add your knowledge below. > > > > > > > > [skip] > > > > > > > > 2.6.14-2 still enables the outdated ieee80211 :( > > > > > > > > Fixing this is simply a matter of disabling CONFIG_IEEE80211. This > > > > will allow to use ipw2200 (ipw2100 also) drivers built using > > > > module-assistant as before. > > > > > > > > > > The complete list of changes needed to turn off ieee80211 seems to be: > > > > > > # CONFIG_HOSTAP is not set > > > # CONFIG_IPW2100 is not set > > > # CONFIG_IPW2200 is not set > > > # CONFIG_IEEE80211_CRYPT_TKIP is not set > > > # CONFIG_IEEE80211_CRYPT_WEP is not set > > > # CONFIG_IEEE80211_CRYPT_CCMP is not set > > > # CONFIG_IEEE80211 is not set > > > > > > Or in other words HOSTAP and IPW2100, IPW2200 and > > > HOSTAP (Prism) also needs to be disabled. Is the > > > latter acceptable collateral dammage? > > > > > > I was under the impression that upstream had > > > recently updated ieee80211. Is it still out of > > > date in 2.6.14 ? > > > > yes. > > 2.6.15 ipw2XXX are fine and with up2date ieee80211 stack. > > there we should really enable those. > > Ok, so I should just go ahead and put my patch into the 2.6.14 branch? > Or should we leave it as 2.6.15 probably isn't that far away... maybe
depends if d-i will base itself on 2.6.14 for next beta than it's maybe nicer to have those ancient than nothing. there are still some -rc expected, maybe we get a christmas present? ;) -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
