On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 05:05 +1100, Sam Watkins wrote:
> Even if the d-d for ndiswrapper has done something wrong or not, even if
> the upstream package is better (I don't know the facts, and I'm not
> personally interested), it is NOT necessary to be rude and go on the
> offensive like this. Pleas
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 03:35:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Oh, but wait, the version of ndiswrapper-source in testing is packaged by
> the same maintainer, and it works just fine for me.
Did you try building it against kernel 2.6.10?
Old versionf of upstream debs build against new kernels;
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:32:45AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > identify problems, both in upstream and packaged versions. Posting in
> > d-d is at least inappropriate.
> It's an open list.
And streets are public, but
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:40:47PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> How can a couple of variables (not two dozens that you would need to get
> from the headers, environment and some other sources) mean tight
> coupling? In which world are you living?
Meaning it breaks it isn't there.
You're confus
* William Ballast [Mon, Jan 10 2005, 02:34:15PM]:
> > WTF? IIRC there are studies about where low cooupling and high cohesion
> > make sense and where not.
>
> All he uses from your include files are a couple of variables.
> That's low cohesion, tight coupling.
How can a couple of variables (not
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:59:59PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> WTF? IIRC there are studies about where low cooupling and high cohesion
> make sense and where not.
All he uses from your include files are a couple of variables.
That's low cohesion, tight coupling.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:59 +0100, de Bladen wrote:
> In the meantime, begin to recompile Debian with staticaly linked
> packages. That is very important, you know. That evil libc causes such a
> mess of tight coupling, one could become crazy from just imaging all the
> possible consequences!!!
#include
* William Ballard [Mon, Jan 10 2005, 12:40:12PM]:
> The only thing it "has to have" module-assistant is a couple of
> variables in debian/rules. For that trivial advantage we now have tight
> coupling on the rest of module-assistant, which means if those variables
> change in module-
Even if the d-d for ndiswrapper has done something wrong or not, even if
the upstream package is better (I don't know the facts, and I'm not
personally interested), it is NOT necessary to be rude and go on the
offensive like this. Please simply state your case, using calm language
and unadorned fa
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 06:14:05PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> What are other packages?!
The other packages which depend on module-assistant.
> the module-assistant package (about 40kB) but provides some comfort for
> users and comfort, code size reduction, extendability, automatic feature
> upg
#include
* William Ballard [Mon, Jan 10 2005, 11:32:45AM]:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > identify problems, both in upstream and packaged versions. Posting in
> > d-d is at least inappropriate.
>
> It's an open list.
There is some reason for its ex
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The upstream is better. It's already Debianized. Do not use the one in
> > the Debian archive.
>
> I consider this as rude.
But it's true.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrum) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charite - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
* William Ballard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050110 17:35]:
> Listen, I'm just going to say this and not reply to all the bazillion
> other flames which are coming:
>
> The upstream is better. It's already Debianized. Do not use the one in
> the Debian archive.
I consider this as rude.
Cheers,
An
On Jan 10, 2005 at 16:24, William Ballard praised the llamas by saying:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:15:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > "shove ... down everybody's throat"
> > "You've F'd it up beyond all recognition"
>
> I filed a bug nice and the guy closed it about 14 minutes later
> immedi
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> identify problems, both in upstream and packaged versions. Posting in
> d-d is at least inappropriate.
It's an open list.
The problem is the upstream has the goal of producing a package that
works and another guy is trying
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:15:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> "shove ... down everybody's throat"
> "You've F'd it up beyond all recognition"
I filed a bug nice and the guy closed it about 14 minutes later
immediately saying "there is no problem." The maintainer is dead-set on
following his ch
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:12:13PM -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.
>
Frankly speaking, I see no reason to not simply bugging th
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 11:06 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:00:18AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > That's still no reason to rip the d-d.
>
> I didn't rip it. I said I'm not griping -- just remarked on
> the fact that the upstream is already Debianized and is not
> broke
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:00:18AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> That's still no reason to rip the d-d.
I didn't rip it. I said I'm not griping -- just remarked on
the fact that the upstream is already Debianized and is not
broken.
I don't think the maintainer even uses ndiswrapper on his
system.
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:57:48 +, David Pashley wrote:
[...]
> Unless I've got this very wrong, but the ndiswrapper source supplied in
> the SF deb is different to the source provided in the Debian package in
> the archive. This suggests it isn't down to the packaging.
You are correct; they are
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 09:31 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 03:45:56AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > 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
On Jan 10, 2005 at 14:31, William Ballard praised the llamas by saying:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 03:45:56AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > 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. Per
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 03:45:56AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> 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 w
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.ne
#include
* William Ballard [Sun, Jan 09 2005, 10:12:13PM]:
> 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.
Stop abusing Debian-Devel for your private wars and file a proper
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.
26 matches
Mail list logo
