[arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26-2.6.24.3-6

[Tobias Powalowski]

Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa at gmx.de> wrote:
> >  > Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee:
> >  > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa at 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.
Why do we always need bugreports?
I got the request on the 2008.03 ISO thread and read the patch site and 
thought it's worth to add it.

> 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?
Probably it get replaced by such a driver in the future but not now in the .24 
series and not in the .25 series.

> 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.
If you would read the mail from yesterday evening there you should see what i 
said needs to be signed off and moved for ISO creation/announcement and there 
was no talk about libarchive.
glibc had a weird bug and klibc-kbd wrong depends that triggers a recreation, 
along with this it was possible to add a new kernel package which supports 
also atl2 network cards, so where is your problem?
Users are happy with the new ISOs, just read the Forum thread about it.

greetings
tpowa
-- 
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
tpowa at archlinux.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20080324/8f050cfa/attachment.pgp>