Frans Pop wrote:
You missed my point. There were still errors in the line I last suggested.
The correct syntax is: ATTR{type}=="1"
Your "second" line still has: ATTR{type}=1
Many apologies. I really thought I had checked by lining up the old and
the new line beneath each other in an editor,
On Tuesday 01 July 2008, Barry Tennison wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > Sorry, I'm a moron.
>
> Well, I don't think you're a moron. But then, I don't think I'm a
> moron either, so maybe my judgement is impaired!
>
> > The correct line should be:
> > SUBSYSTEM=="net", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="
On Monday 30 June 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> It's not up to us, as d-i team, to decide about modules if they
> provide or not something useful ... if it gets loaded on installed
> system and it does affect the installation (as this does) I think we
> ought to include it.
Of course it is up to
Frans Pop wrote:
Sorry, I'm a moron.
Well, I don't think you're a moron. But then, I don't think I'm a moron
either, so maybe my judgement is impaired!
The correct line should be:
SUBSYSTEM=="net", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:d0:59:bd:d5:c5", ATTR{type}=="1",
NAME="eth1"
Change the
On Monday 30 June 2008, Barry Tennison wrote:
> (1) In fact, this must be what happens with madwifi too: it always
> creates a sta interface athN, and I'm pretty sure there won't be a udev
> rule in systems without madwifi that makes any reference to athN
> interfaces.
Yes, there is. udev basicall
On Monday 30 June 2008, Barry Tennison wrote:
> After your modprobe remove&reload hostap_pci, the results were exactly
> as before: ifconfig -a had interfaces wifi0 and wlan0, and the last two
>
> rules in z25_persistent-net.rules had become:
> > # PCI device 0x1260:0x3873 (orinoco_pci)
> > SUBSYST
I should have expanded the argument in two ways. Building on:
I suppose this does make some kind of sense, as hostap_pci must in fact do (at
least) two things in succession:
* create the master interface wifiN (where N=0 for us as it's the first such
interface to be created)
* create an sta in
Frans Pop wrote:
Barry: a few requests.
1) What was the wireless interface called in the installer?
You can probably tell from /var/log/installer/syslog.
eth1
You can check this from my original report (email of Fri, 27 Jun 2008
14:16:15 +0100 in bug 488267), and in the installer outputs I pr
(There's no need to CC me or Otavio when you reply. Just reply to the bug
report.)
On Monday 30 June 2008, Barry Tennison wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> I understand the complexity of the argument.
> I would just stress that from the "simple user" (including me) point of
> view, the key things are t
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 30 June 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > The workaround is still, as I wrote earlier, to remove the existing
>> > rename rule for the wifi interface in the z25 script and to let udev
>> > regenerate it.
>>
Frans Pop wrote:
The workaround is still, as I wrote earlier, to remove the existing rename
rule for the wifi interface in the z25 script and to let udev regenerate
it.
I understand the complexity of the argument.
I would just stress that from the "simple user" (including me) point of
view, t
On Monday 30 June 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The workaround is still, as I wrote earlier, to remove the existing
> > rename rule for the wifi interface in the z25 script and to let udev
> > regenerate it.
>
> Adding the module would avoid the workaround
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The workaround is still, as I wrote earlier, to remove the existing rename
> rule for the wifi interface in the z25 script and to let udev regenerate
> it.
Adding the module would avoid the workaround. Seems better to me.
--
O T A V I OS A L
On Sunday 29 June 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> IMO this is clearly a udev problem and adding the hostap modules to D-I
> is NOT going to solve that, but is only going to make things worse.
Looking at udev, a similar issue has already been identified for the
atheros driver which also has two interface
Otavio: When you send replies to the BTS, please take note of where these
replies will
end up. In this report you have sent two replies that never ended up on the
debian-boot
list, when they were clearly intended for that list.
Otavio wrote on Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:14:06 -0300:
> Not really, loo
15 matches
Mail list logo
