On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 15:51 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > 2010/3/1 Scott James Remnant <sc...@ubuntu.com>: > > On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:17 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > > > >> A little bit *bump* - so, what we do with this one? Is there enough > >> reason for freeze exception for this one? > >> > > A freeze exception wouldn't just be "add usb-modeswitch", we also need > > to remove modem-modeswitch from udev, make sure that usb-modeswitch > > covers all of its hardware - and probably also do the same with the > > kernel code that deals with the other kinds of devices. > > Well, wouldn't we just make sure that usb-modeswitch and > modem-modeswitch doesn't get called by same device (like simply > comparing udev rules)? Covering all by usb-modeswitch would be longer > goal for lucid+1. > I'm not comfortable with having three different code-paths, depending which device you have - it's a support nightmare. It's also very difficult to make *sure* we get that right.
Also remember we'll be doing up to five years of updates for this release, and some of those may need to add new hardware support, etc. This could introduce new clashes and conflicts down the line. If it wasn't after Feature Freeze already, I'd be quite supportive - usb-modeswitch totally seems the way to go; I just think it's too late to make the change for an LTS, and I certainly don't think it's a good idea to introduce overlapping pieces this late. It seems more prudent to me to simply document that if your card isn't supported by Lucid OOTB, you may install the unsupported usb-modeswitch package from universe. Then work on having that be the sole supported option for lucid+1 Scott -- Scott James Remnant sc...@ubuntu.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
