On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 15:45 -0400, Darren Albers wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 20:13 -0400, Darren Albers wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Darren Albers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 21:47 -0400, Darren Albers wrote: > >> >>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> > On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 22:59 -0400, Darren Albers wrote: > >> >>> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> > >> >>> >> wrote: > >> >>> >> > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 20:10 -0500, Darren Albers wrote: > >> >>> >> >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Dan Williams <[email protected]> > >> >>> >> >> wrote: > >> >>> >> >> > On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 15:45 -0500, Darren Albers wrote: > >> >>> >> >> >> Are there any testing packages I can install to enable > >> >>> >> >> >> Bluetooth DUN > >> >>> >> >> >> support on Fedora 12? > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > The latest builds in koji should work; I've been doing some > >> >>> >> >> > heavy > >> >>> >> >> > ModemManager work the past week or two and thus there aren't > >> >>> >> >> > any builds > >> >>> >> >> > in a suitable state for F12 testing quite yet. > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=157530 > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > Dan > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> Sorry one further question, is it safe to use these builds with > >> >>> >> >> an > >> >>> >> >> older version of ModemManager? Safe obviously being a > >> >>> >> >> relatively > >> >>> >> >> term considering it isn't even in testing yet but enough for > >> >>> >> >> someone > >> >>> >> >> to play with? > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > Yes, they should be pretty safe for versions of NM from 2010 or > >> >>> >> > very > >> >>> >> > late 2009. > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > Dan > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Thanks Dan! I actually tested it on Fedora 13 but ModemManager > >> >>> >> doesn't seem to like how the Blackberry responds. I filed a bug > >> >>> >> report on it but as usual for Blackberry's they seem to respond a > >> >>> >> little differently that what you expect. In this case it responds > >> >>> >> with: > >> >>> >> ** Message: (rfcomm0) opening serial device... > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): probe requested by > >> >>> >> plugin 'Generic' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'AT+GCAP<CR>' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <-- > >> >>> >> '+GCAP:<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'AT+GCAP<CR>' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <-- > >> >>> >> '+GCAP:<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'AT+GCAP<CR>' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <-- > >> >>> >> '+GCAP:<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'ATI<CR>' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <-- 'Research In Motion > >> >>> >> BlackBerry > >> >>> >> IP Modem<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'AT+CPIN?<CR>' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <-- '+CPIN: > >> >>> >> READY<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): --> 'AT+CGMM<CR>' > >> >>> >> ** (modem-manager:2729): DEBUG: (rfcomm0): <-- 'RIM BlackBerry > >> >>> >> Device > >> >>> >> 4001507<CR><LF><CR><LF>OK<CR><LF>' > >> >>> >> ** Message: (rfcomm0) closing serial device... > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> I guess when it does this ModemManager doesn't recognize the > >> >>> >> response > >> >>> >> from CGMM (Model Query?) so it doesn't go any further? CPIN seems > >> >>> >> to > >> >>> >> match what is expected in mm-generic-gsm.c but I can't seem to > >> >>> >> follow > >> >>> >> what it expects from CGMM and where that is checked. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > It's not responding to GCAP so we don't actually know whether it's a > >> >>> > CDMA or a GSM device. What kind is yours? > >> >>> > > >> >>> > If yours is a GSM device, then that's great since it responds to > >> >>> > AT+CPIN > >> >>> > correctly and we'll know it's a GSM device with recent ModemManager > >> >>> > versions. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > If yours is a CDMA device and it responds to AT+CPIN, then I hate the > >> >>> > world and we'll have to figure something else out :) > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Dan > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> You can save your hate for more important things like bad wireless > >> >>> cards then since it is a GSM device! I can get a CDMA device to test > >> >>> if you want to know how that kind of device responds. So if a more > >> >>> recent version of ModemManager is used it may recognize it as a Modem? > >> >> > >> >> Yeah, which I'll build today, hopefully. > >> >> > >> >> Dan > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > Great news, thank you! > >> > > >> > >> Dan, > >> > >> I tested the builds today and it detected the modem but when I > >> attempted to connect using Network Manager it failed and I see this in > >> /var/log/messages: > >> Mar 25 19:51:58 localhost dbus-daemon: Rejected send message, 2 > >> matched rules; type="method_return", sender=":1.12" (uid=0 pid=1424 > >> comm="/usr/sbin/bluetoothd) interface="(unset)" member="(unset)" error > >> name="(unset)" requested_reply=0 destination=":1.10" (uid=0 pid=1414 > >> comm="NetworkManager)) > > > > At what point does that failure come? This could be caused by recent > > (well, year-old) dbus policy changes for unrequested reply messages > > which I'm not 100% sure how to get fixed... > > > > walters; what could be the cause of this sort of thing again? > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > It comes after the AT commands are sent I think and it looks like it > is actually up when this kicks off. Would you like the output of the > modemmanager plugin in debug or just the general messages from the log > around it? What seems weird to me is shouldn't their be an > interface name defined somewhere so a dbus policy can be created to > allow it to send from that interface to another?
easy selinux test: "setenforce 0" and try again and see if you get the error still. Dan _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
