Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Tobias Powalowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee: > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Tobias Powalowski <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
