On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 06:14:27PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 18:07 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:00:16PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 17:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:08:27AM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > > > The answer as always for drivers in the main kernel package is "get it > > > > > upstream". And for better or worse, I think that the regulatory daemon > > > > > is likely to be a big sticking point for the driver going upstream :( > > > > > > > > It sounded like this was more liked than the firmware approach. > > > > > > By who? I read exactly the opposite :) > > > > I read an article by thl on heise.de (in german), where it was > > supposed to be considered better that propriatry kernel stuff > > or. Maybe I should check the original tone. > > proprietary kernel stuff != firmware :) sorry, I'll take it back. I found the article (for German readers): http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/meldung/70092&words=ipw3945 and the quote was from Dax Kelson: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/32622 So, indeed no love for ipw3945. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpqeOeve459U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
