On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 08:06:07PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 19:44 +0200, Dino Leonardo Sangoi wrote: > > Maybe a nicer way to handle these changes would be delivering the > > needed package to the repositories, sending a heads-up to Fedora > > testers list, and then changing the kernel. Sorry, there is some slack in the system. I think it is more important to get the code available in rawhide. > Yeah, John and I did discuss it briefly, and I think he was going to > create a new b43-fwcutter package and submit it for review. http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/i386/os/Packages/b43-fwcutter-008-1.fc8.i386.rpm http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/testing/7/i386/b43-fwcutter-008-1.fc7.i386.rpm > Rawhide is... well, rawhide. You get to keep both pieces when it breaks. > But I agree that before we switch F-7 to the new driver (which we'd like > to do, because it's better), we should have a slightly more coherent > strategy in place. Actually, F-7 has the new driver. I am carrying a patch there to revert back to the old firmware format for the time being. > If we could find a way to 'convert' the old-style extracted firmware to > the new format, that would make it a lot easier -- it could be a %post > script in b43-fwcutter then, and the new kernel could require > b43-fwcutter (or conflict with bcm43xx-fwcutter, perhaps). This would be nice, but I'm told it is impractical. For one thing, the 'supported' firmware list is a lot shorter for the b43 driver. I'm not sure what I can say at the moment, but I am investigating some possible options to resolve this issue nicely. Hth! John -- John W. Linville linville@xxxxxxxxxx -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
