On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi kernel bump release for both arches in testing, please signoff added atheros l2 network adapter support (used in eee pcs)
What was wrong with AUR for this? Why on earth do we keep adding MORE PATCHES!? more patches are so cool, you know ;) i hope one day you get new hardware and you are not able to get your network working, then i want to hear you scream.
I have an Eee, I managed to pull off an FTP install just fine.
I compiled the driver by hand, just as has always been the case for out-of-tree driver with Arch if there is not already a separate package for it.
I did this 22 months ago for my zd1211 wireless stick before it was in the mainline kernel, and I had *0 days of desktop linux experience* at that time (on my own machine). 0 days. And now we bend over backwards for someone needing a driver? Ugh. I thought April fools and the rename to Newb Linux wasn't for another week.
I just want to say that I'm frustrated, so sorry for unleashing here- I mean what I say, but am really not trying to start some back and forth war that we aren't going to be able to make a decision on. However: 1) Did we even have a bug report for adding atl2? I saw a forum thread that suggested building it from the AUR, which seemed like a valid solution. 2) atl2 is never going to make it upstream- I thought this was the criteria for adding a patch. Instead, an atlx driver is going to take the place of atl1/atl2. When did we change our patch inclusion criteria? 3) You tell me in one thread that libarchive is too late, and two minutes later I see there is a new kernel that was probably made for the ISO. This confuses me. The communication and transparency here has had a HUGE breakdown. -Dan