iw package (Was: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda)
Hello, > BTW -- while we're on the topic of 2.6.32 and the next Debian release, > and 802.11, do you guys ship iw by default yet? If not I highly > encourage it. It should be shipped just as iwconfig is shipped. iw is > the replacement for iwconfig, it uses the new nl80211 and nl80211 is > used by all cfg80211 and mac80211 drivers. All new upstream drivers > have to be cfg80211 based (or mac80211) so hence why I recommend to > just ship iw by default today. $ apt-cache show iw Package: iw Priority: extra Section: net Installed-Size: 120 Maintainer: Debian/Ubuntu wpasupplicant Maintainers Architecture: amd64 Version: 0.9.14-1 Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3), libnl1 (>= 1.1) Conflicts: aircrack-ng (<< 1:1.0~rc2-1) Filename: pool/main/i/iw/iw_0.9.14-1_amd64.deb Size: 30602 MD5sum: 8c04be8f94b178d0c3f6a2c8b95ed994 SHA1: 7cdf4372b119a89f27132b9453d7d93e4715ce77 SHA256: fa1ad798b631b3f3b7f0ad02a1d99db678746706117e794c540af4b63f4b7910 Description: tool for configuring Linux wireless devices This package contains the `iw' tool which allows you to configure and show information about wireless networking. . In the future iw will become the canonical command line tool for wireless configuration and iwconfig/wireless-tools will no longer be required. See /usr/share/doc/iw/README.Debian for a more detailed overview of iw. Homepage: http://wireless.kernel.org/en/users/Documentation/iw Tag: implemented-in::c, network::configuration, role::program, use::configuring so it exists, but for now this isn't installed by default. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König| Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100304105523.ge5...@pengutronix.de
Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 04:44 +0200, Faidon Liambotis wrote: >> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > Can you guys upstream a package into Debian with a gitweb URL reference? >> If I'm understanding the question correctly, yes. We have Vcs-$VCS (i.e. >> Vcs-Git) and Vcs-Browser pseudo-headers. Both are optional. > > The Vcs-* fields are for the Debian package VCS. > > There is an emerging project to add upstream metadata to Debian source > packages: > > http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata > >> I agree with Kel here, git2cl et al are unimportant details. > > Indeed, that is why the relevant lintian warning is marked pedantic. > Personally I think this part of Debian policy needs a review, I don't > have the time or energy to bring it up on debian-policy though. > >> Kel, mail me in private when you have something ready for review & >> upload, as usual. > > Check this thread: > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-wpa-devel/2010-March/thread.html#2541 > > He already created almost perfect packages that are pretty-much ready to > be uploaded, just a couple of minor issues. BTW -- while we're on the topic of 2.6.32 and the next Debian release, and 802.11, do you guys ship iw by default yet? If not I highly encourage it. It should be shipped just as iwconfig is shipped. iw is the replacement for iwconfig, it uses the new nl80211 and nl80211 is used by all cfg80211 and mac80211 drivers. All new upstream drivers have to be cfg80211 based (or mac80211) so hence why I recommend to just ship iw by default today. Luis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/43e72e891003031416m5572e171j8c7978b77b278...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 04:44 +0200, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Can you guys upstream a package into Debian with a gitweb URL reference? > If I'm understanding the question correctly, yes. We have Vcs-$VCS (i.e. > Vcs-Git) and Vcs-Browser pseudo-headers. Both are optional. The Vcs-* fields are for the Debian package VCS. There is an emerging project to add upstream metadata to Debian source packages: http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamMetadata > I agree with Kel here, git2cl et al are unimportant details. Indeed, that is why the relevant lintian warning is marked pedantic. Personally I think this part of Debian policy needs a review, I don't have the time or energy to bring it up on debian-policy though. > Kel, mail me in private when you have something ready for review & > upload, as usual. Check this thread: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-wpa-devel/2010-March/thread.html#2541 He already created almost perfect packages that are pretty-much ready to be uploaded, just a couple of minor issues. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Can you guys upstream a package into Debian with a gitweb URL reference? If I'm understanding the question correctly, yes. We have Vcs-$VCS (i.e. Vcs-Git) and Vcs-Browser pseudo-headers. Both are optional. I agree with Kel here, git2cl et al are unimportant details. Kel, mail me in private when you have something ready for review & upload, as usual. Regards, Faidon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b8c7b7c.5010...@debian.org
Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 04:13:25 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:47 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > > >> FWIW, I don't create the tarballs. Perhaps we could ask Johannes to > >> do something in his scripts that create them? Beyond that I don't > >> see much point in checking-in a ChangeLog. > > I can add that too. > > > It definitely shouldn't be checked into git, but rather generated from > > the git commit logs; with git2cl, git log or similar. With an autotools > > based build system you would add a command to the Makefile.am so that > > automake runs git2cl during 'make dist' / 'make distcheck'. For > > non-autotools based projects you usually won't have a standard 'make > > dist' so it would need to be added to whatever script is the equivalent. > > > >> Do you like that git2cl output? It seems rather ugly to me... > > > > Its the standard ancient GNU form for a ChangeLog. I have no opinion on > > its aesthetics and I don't think it matters what format it has really. > > I think the format is indeed pretty ugly, can't we just do: > > git log v0.9.8..v0.9.9 > ChangeLog > > I've attached an example output of this on the iw package for example. > Paul, does Debian packaging not care the format the ChangeLog is on? FWIW, I do not think all of this is necessary, the information stored in the git repository is rich and readily available. We're getting pedantic here. Thanks, Kel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003020750.58757@otaku42.de
Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Kel Modderman wrote: > On Tuesday 02 March 2010 04:13:25 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Paul Wise wrote: >> > On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:47 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: >> > >> >> FWIW, I don't create the tarballs. Perhaps we could ask Johannes to >> >> do something in his scripts that create them? Beyond that I don't >> >> see much point in checking-in a ChangeLog. >> >> I can add that too. >> >> > It definitely shouldn't be checked into git, but rather generated from >> > the git commit logs; with git2cl, git log or similar. With an autotools >> > based build system you would add a command to the Makefile.am so that >> > automake runs git2cl during 'make dist' / 'make distcheck'. For >> > non-autotools based projects you usually won't have a standard 'make >> > dist' so it would need to be added to whatever script is the equivalent. >> > >> >> Do you like that git2cl output? It seems rather ugly to me... >> > >> > Its the standard ancient GNU form for a ChangeLog. I have no opinion on >> > its aesthetics and I don't think it matters what format it has really. >> >> I think the format is indeed pretty ugly, can't we just do: >> >> git log v0.9.8..v0.9.9 > ChangeLog >> >> I've attached an example output of this on the iw package for example. >> Paul, does Debian packaging not care the format the ChangeLog is on? > > FWIW, I do not think all of this is necessary, the information stored in the > git repository is rich and readily available. We're getting pedantic here. Can you guys upstream a package into Debian with a gitweb URL reference? Luis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/43e72e891003011356l7491007co1e6837e2a64d8...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:47 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > >> FWIW, I don't create the tarballs. Perhaps we could ask Johannes to >> do something in his scripts that create them? Beyond that I don't >> see much point in checking-in a ChangeLog. I can add that too. > It definitely shouldn't be checked into git, but rather generated from > the git commit logs; with git2cl, git log or similar. With an autotools > based build system you would add a command to the Makefile.am so that > automake runs git2cl during 'make dist' / 'make distcheck'. For > non-autotools based projects you usually won't have a standard 'make > dist' so it would need to be added to whatever script is the equivalent. > >> Do you like that git2cl output? It seems rather ugly to me... > > Its the standard ancient GNU form for a ChangeLog. I have no opinion on > its aesthetics and I don't think it matters what format it has really. I think the format is indeed pretty ugly, can't we just do: git log v0.9.8..v0.9.9 > ChangeLog I've attached an example output of this on the iw package for example. Paul, does Debian packaging not care the format the ChangeLog is on? Luis commit f8396b2454ece21a9db91ad592192b865522aa33 Author: Johannes Berg Date: Sat Jan 24 15:36:08 2009 +0100 bump version to 0.9.9 commit c1d44a6c68790adc45d4a047cdd3a93332210c17 Author: Johannes Berg Date: Sat Jan 24 15:35:30 2009 +0100 RTFM link for ap/master modes commit 0c099f3edd23586680e700dbe16a484b0d0568f9 Author: Johannes Berg Date: Sat Jan 24 15:15:46 2009 +0100 add commas to see also section commit 585e62cbc9fddaba274d948dd0e1ab78b18fc02f Author: Luis R. Rodriguez Date: Fri Jan 23 15:02:38 2009 -0800 iw: fix typo, add few references This fixes a small typo s/ip/iw, and adds references to the other new wireless subsystem userspace applications/files. Lets also point users to the iw wiki as it has lots of good stuff. Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez commit 45d543f0a65cd4a5ad461b88acee1749a5c78431 Author: Johannes Berg Date: Wed Jan 21 16:30:52 2009 +0100 include netlink/netlink.h also fixes the nl_handle vs. nl_sock issue that has been plaguing people trying to use libnl from git commit ee9cd9875412bbe0ab24c4f8acd25253ec1410c4 Author: Johannes Berg Date: Sun Jan 18 18:13:54 2009 +0100 suppress flags on disabled channels
Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:43:46PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > I'd suggest that 'make dist' should include a ChangeLog file in the > >> > tarball, generated with git2cl or git log or whatever. A NEWS file > >> > summarising the user-visible changes in each version would also be a > >> > good idea for both crda and wireless-regdb. > >> > >> I see little point to maintaining a ChangeLog on these two upstream > >> git projects, is this something that has to be done on the package > >> debian/* stuff itself then? Is this required for inclusion into > >> Debian? > > > > The point is that upstream are already maintaining a ChangeLog with git > > and it'd be nice if they included that in the release tarballs (which > > don't include the git history) by doing git2cl or git log or whatever in > > 'make dist' when they create the tarball. > > > > The NEWS file is a separate, hand-maintained file summarising > > user-visible changes between different releases. > > Thanks, I understand now. I just downloaded git2cl: > > http://josefsson.org/git2cl/git2cl > > I'll include some ChangeLog for the next release. Its up to John if he > wants to use that as well, he maintains wireless-regdb while I > maintain crda. The current Debian package puts these two together > though so something custom is required anyway for now. FWIW, I don't create the tarballs. Perhaps we could ask Johannes to do something in his scripts that create them? Beyond that I don't see much point in checking-in a ChangeLog. Do you like that git2cl output? It seems rather ugly to me... John -- John W. LinvilleSomeday the world will need a hero, and you linvi...@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100301154701.gc2...@tuxdriver.com
Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:47 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > FWIW, I don't create the tarballs. Perhaps we could ask Johannes to > do something in his scripts that create them? Beyond that I don't > see much point in checking-in a ChangeLog. It definitely shouldn't be checked into git, but rather generated from the git commit logs; with git2cl, git log or similar. With an autotools based build system you would add a command to the Makefile.am so that automake runs git2cl during 'make dist' / 'make distcheck'. For non-autotools based projects you usually won't have a standard 'make dist' so it would need to be added to whatever script is the equivalent. > Do you like that git2cl output? It seems rather ugly to me... Its the standard ancient GNU form for a ChangeLog. I have no opinion on its aesthetics and I don't think it matters what format it has really. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 23:59 +0200, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > I'm a member of pkg-wpa-devel and I've been sponsoring Kel for almost 4 > years. I have absolute trust in him and I've even offered to advocate > him to the NM process multiple times. I'd definitely agree with your assessment here and would also encourage Kel to apply for NM. > I'd be happy to review and sponsor the uploads of crda/wireless-regdb, > if Paul doesn't have a problem with this. Definitely no problem there. > I usually prefer team maintenance, so I think it'd be best if this > happened in pkg-wpa; my offer to sponsor is independent of that, though. Agreed, whoever wants to help maintain this should join pkg-wpa. So, summary of the main issues with Kel's current package: He doesn't have time to maintain it and needs folks to join pkg-wpa, take ownership of the crda RFP (#536502) and work to get both crda and wireless-regdb uploaded. It combines crda & wireless-regdb into one source package. While upstream keeps them separate, we should do the same. A few other issues that are easy to fix: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2010/02/msg00336.html -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > As per Paul Wise' advice I'd like to request for help with the > crda/wireless-regdb package for Debian for the next release of Debian. > I am the upstream crda maintainer and John Linville is the upstream > wireless-regdb maintainer. Kel Modderman has already done most work > required for the Debian package, if not all. What we now need is some > Debian Developer to be willing to either upload the package as-is, or > some help from some experienced package maintainers to address a few > items. I should note Paul Wise has offered sponsorship for this > package so I think we are on the last track to getting this package > finalized and/or uploaded but he just noted a few changes required. > > Summary of review with Paul Wise: > > * Package could likely be uploaded into Debian as-is, just requires > someone comfortable with it > > * We need more help with thepkg-wpa-devel group I'm a member of pkg-wpa-devel and I've been sponsoring Kel for almost 4 years. I have absolute trust in him and I've even offered to advocate him to the NM process multiple times. I'd be happy to review and sponsor the uploads of crda/wireless-regdb, if Paul doesn't have a problem with this. I usually prefer team maintenance, so I think it'd be best if this happened in pkg-wpa; my offer to sponsor is independent of that, though. Regards, Faidon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b8995b6.5000...@debian.org
[RFH] Debian 2.6.32 CONFIG_WIRELESS_OLD_REGULATORY, wireless-regdb and crda
Adding debian-devel and debian-mentors. As per Paul Wise' advice I'd like to request for help with the crda/wireless-regdb package for Debian for the next release of Debian. I am the upstream crda maintainer and John Linville is the upstream wireless-regdb maintainer. Kel Modderman has already done most work required for the Debian package, if not all. What we now need is some Debian Developer to be willing to either upload the package as-is, or some help from some experienced package maintainers to address a few items. I should note Paul Wise has offered sponsorship for this package so I think we are on the last track to getting this package finalized and/or uploaded but he just noted a few changes required. Summary of review with Paul Wise: * Package could likely be uploaded into Debian as-is, just requires someone comfortable with it * We need more help with thepkg-wpa-devel group * Sponsorship available by Paul Wise given a few change below are made: o Modify the Makefile to add a 'make dist' to generate a ChangeLog using git2cl [1] and NEWS based on crda and wireless-regdb upstream git Paul I'm not familiar with the sponsorship process on Debian, does this mean if the above is address you would be wiling to upload the final package yourself? Or does this have other implications? I address some of Paul's own comments below. If you would like to read the original thread you can refer to the pkg-wpa-devel package list. [1] http://josefsson.org/git2cl/git2cl [2] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-wpa-devel/2010-January/002415.html If anyone has any questions please let me know. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:19 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> Upstream does not do the same. Ubuntu packages these two together >> right now but it was because it made life easier for packaging. >> >> John, do you guys package wireless-regdb and crda together on Fedora >> land? Was this because of the dynamic key building per package? If so >> what is the restriction on using two packages? > >> Thanks John. So -- not sure if Kel will have time to split these, I >> gather he is still pretty busy with his move. Paul, is this a >> requirement for inclusion? If so we'll need to request for some help. > > I wouldn't upload it to Debian like that, you might find other people in > Debian who would be willing to do so though. OK. >> > nl80211.h looks like it comes from Linux, can't you just build-depend on >> > the linux-libc-dev package and do #include ? Comparing >> > the crda one and the one from Linux 2.6.32 reveals quite a few changes >> > since you copied nl80211.h into crda. >> >> nl80211 is designed to allow userspace applications to either ship >> their own nl80211.h based on the most recent kernel or to ship it and >> ifdef around a feature instead of the kernel version. > ... >> For CRDA then we ship our own nl80211.h and it doesn't matter much as >> we only use only one command, and the API that can't change anyway. >> When CRDA wants to make use of something new we can just re-synch, >> just as we do with iw. > > Hmm, OK. I guess that makes sense. Yeah hope >> > Even after manually ensuring that sha1sum.txt reflects the sha1sum of >> > db.txt with "sha1sum db.txt > sha1sum.txt", the wireless-regdb Makefile >> > still seems to generate a new Debian RSA key pair. If the db.txt hasn't >> > changed, there is no reason to auto-generate and install a key pair. >> >> wireless-regdb is designed so that you do not have to run make at all >> if you just intend on using John's key. So running make even if db.txt >> has not changed will generate the keys for you and sign the >> regulatory.bin with the new key. > > Hmm, OK. So the Debian packaging should check that db.txt is unchanged, > instead of the upstream Makefile doing that check? No, I meant that some distributions won't run make at all. Those who do will always have something done if you don't yet have a key built for you. By default the regulatory.bin is signed with this key. You will re-sign the file if db.txt changes. > I guess that means > Fedora, Gentoo, Ubuntu etc all need to do the same thing. Fedora does build stuff so they just go with the defaults. Ubuntu just ships the provided regulatory.bin, they do not build anything, the package is very simple for the binary regulatory database as you really only need to build if you have policies which require this (the content would be the same except the signature), or you want to change the database yourself. >> > dpkg-shlibdeps complains that neither crda and regdbdump use symbols >> > from libssl, it looks like this might be a false positive though: >> > >> > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libssl.so.0.9.8 could be avoided if >> > "debian/crda/sbin/regdbdump debian/crda/sbin/crda" were not uselessly >> > linked against it (they use none of its symbols). >> >> They are not uselessly linking against libssl if inde
