Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-27 Thread Jean-Marc Ranger
> If hotplug is mandatory, then it's mandatory for firmware loading, not > for actual module installation. ie. modprobe can load the module as > easily as hotplug, but modules using firmware_class (which should be > all of the drivers that need non-DFSG firmware) call hotplug or some > other firmw

Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-24 Thread Paul TBBle Hampson
> Upstream author list hotplug among its requirements. Trying without > hotplug/udev was the first thing I did after reading Paul's comment, > but I didn't managed to get it working (my test setup is cardbus, as > you suspected). It seems faily typical - it's also mandatory for > ipw2100-source,

Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-22 Thread Jean-Marc Ranger
A new edition of adm8211-source_0.0.20050620-1 is available at http://web.ncf.ca/jmranger/adm8211/ It should fix all items previously mentioned, and more. Looks clean for me. Build and installs the driver as expected with kernel 2.6.12. Thanks. Glad to know. About the hotplug/udev issue: u

Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-22 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include * Jean-Marc Ranger [Sat, Oct 22 2005, 05:57:57PM]: > > Many thanks to Paul and Eduard for your comments and hints. > > A new edition of adm8211-source_0.0.20050620-1 is available at > http://web.ncf.ca/jmranger/adm8211/ > It should fix all items previously mentioned, and more. Looks c

Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-22 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include * Paul Wise [Tue, Oct 18 2005, 02:44:23PM]: > Well, in debian there is a tradition of for each config file, there is > an equivalent .d directory that can be used by packages other than the > one that installs the config file. For example /etc/logrotate.conf > and /etc/logrotate.d. I'm j

Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-17 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 20:42 -0400, Jean-Marc Ranger wrote: > I plan to keep a single changelog entry until package is "officially" > issued. Is this ok ? As a side effect, using -v wouldn't be required. This is ok, but, I don't think mentors.debian.net allows you to re-upload the same version.

Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-17 Thread Jean-Marc Ranger
Thanks for all these comments. It's always a great feeling to discover that someone took time to look at what you did - even if to report that you did a lot of stupid things :) I took them seriously, so I'll report everything that I noticed while doing so. Please don't get me wrong - I'm jus

Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-11 Thread Paul Wise
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 18:26 -0400, Jean-Marc Ranger wrote: > You're well-placed to know since you're the credited author :) So > agreed, my mistake. Well, I just made a couple of minimal patches, Matthew Palmer is the main author. > Other comments ? debian/changelog - add (Closes: #333237) - w

Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-11 Thread Jean-Marc Ranger
Paul Wise wrote: Jean-Marc Ranger wrote: There are no signs of an ITP ( Intented To Package ) Please file an "ITP bugreport" I thought it was optional. Why would it be optional? Why would you want to prevent duplication of effort and track your packaging progress? I could *try* to ju

Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-11 Thread Paul TBBle Hampson
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:42:56PM -0400, Jean-Marc Ranger wrote: > Hi Geert, > Thanks for your feedback. > >There are no signs of an ITP ( Intented To Package ) > >Please file an "ITP bugreport" > I thought it was optional. Fixed anyway, see http://bugs.debian.org/333237 It's optional, in s

Re: Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-11 Thread Paul Wise
Jean-Marc Ranger wrote: > > There are no signs of an ITP ( Intented To Package ) > > Please file an "ITP bugreport" > > I thought it was optional. Why would it be optional? Why would you want to prevent duplication of effort and track your packaging progress? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian

Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-10 Thread Jean-Marc Ranger
Hi Geert, Thanks for your feedback. There are no signs of an ITP ( Intented To Package ) Please file an "ITP bugreport" I thought it was optional. Fixed anyway, see http://bugs.debian.org/333237 A newer version is available at http://web.ncf.ca/jmranger/adm8211/ with the following change

Re: [RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-10 Thread Geert Stappers
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 09:03:40PM -0400, Jean-Marc Ranger wrote: > Hi, > > Here's a new candidate for inclusion in Sid: Jouni Malinen and Michael > Wu 's GPL driver for ADMtek's adm8211-based 802.11b wireless cards, Hardware with GPL drivers is COOL! > Candidate package is available at ht

[RFC/RFS] adm8211-source - driver for ADMtek wifi card

2005-10-08 Thread Jean-Marc Ranger
Hi, Here's a new candidate for inclusion in Sid: Jouni Malinen and Michael Wu 's GPL driver for ADMtek's adm8211-based 802.11b wireless cards, which include: Xterasys Cardbus XN-2411b Blitz - NetWave Point PC TrendNet 221pc Belkin F5D6001 SMC 2635W