> Yuv, glad it is working in Quantal! Yes, congrats to the developer who fixed it, well done!
> Did you need a backport to a release prior to Quantal, or may we close this report as Status Invalid? This should not be about my need, but about Ubuntu's needs. If I was the project manager asked to make a decision whether to backport or not, I would ask the following questions: (1) how much effort is a backport, i.e. how much will it cost? developer's time is precious and it may be better used somewhere else. I am totally unfamiliar with kernel/driver development and can't answer this one. (2) how many users/machines are affected? Is there an indication how popular Broadcom BCM43225 is with laptop-makers? Are other wireless chipsets affected? Are the affected chipsets still in production or have they ben discontinued? If discontinued, how long ago? Here I can reasonably state that WiFi is a critical feature for a laptop, so all users of laptops featuring affected chipsets are critically affected. But I have no idea how popular the affected chipsets are / what their market share is. If the chipset was discontinued, the question is how long should Ubuntu support it. In a commercial environment a three years old machine is obsolete. In private environment people keep their hardware for longer. In a commercial environment, stability is paramount and asking to upgrade from Precise to Quantal has heavy consequences. In a private environement there is more flexibility and it can be asked from the user to upgrade to Quantal to solve the problem. So I would say that just for the obsolence factor, if the affected chipset has been discontinued for less than two year it may be worth backporting, if more than two year backporting may be a waste of development resources. (3) how much is Ubuntu's reputation (or Linux' reputation if the bug was upstream) worth? This is ultimately the most important one. Precise is an LTS. Support is planned until April 2017 and if the past is an indication of the future, it will have four more point releases in the future and will be replaced by the next LTS in April 2014. This all speaks in favour of a backport. Summarizing: given the inputs listed above, I might be able to make a suggestion. With the incomplete information I have I would find it irresponsible to ask for a backport. > Regarding how the indicator LED is not working, if you would like a fix for it, could you please file a new report >From my perspective this is just cosmetic, and if I had enough budget for either the backport or the indicator LED I would vote for the backport right away. The only use I see for the indicator LED is to tell flight attendants that the wireless is still on so that they can bugger me to turn it off. I mentioned the LED in the original bug report because it may have been a symptom related to the real bug. Since the bug itself was fixed and the LED is still non-functional, there is probably no relation. I can live with the LED off. Sorry for the rather longish text, I hope it gives you some insight into the way I am thinking and why I am not really giving you the answer you are asking for. If you were to press me for an answer, my gut feeling would be: please backport. But it would be unfair. Who am I to control your use of your time? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/738657 Title: 14e4:4357 Broadcom BCM43225 no longer works To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/738657/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
