Jacques, When a large body of users can be benefitted by moving to an installer format from a mere tarball, I think it is worthwhile. In the older ltmodem code days, we did that to benefit Newbies who couldn't compile yet and/or for whom installing the large compiling requisites was difficult. Judging from our incoming quieries, some 80% of them are Users of Ubuntu variants. Thus a LOT of burden will take taken off of this List, to the extent that Ubuntu installers are made available. A reason that I gave up maintaining ltmodem/martian installer.deb packages was that 1) in the early 2.6 period was that there was such a large proliferation of versions I couldn't devote the time to keep up, and 2) for the modems supported by ALSA drivers + slmodemd, the non-driver slmodemd only had to be updated with gcc change. But as Bjorn has pointed out, for kernels with MODVERSIONS set, all the minor Flavor variants of a Distros (say) 2.6.24-whatever can be served by a single driver set, so the kernel proliferation problem is much less. I have in fact been progressively writing some installation scripts, just not taking them all the way to Debianizing as previously. You are correct that the core code versioning has to be carefully maintained. But this is already well managed under the Debian packaging rules. Thus the little extra coordination effort is I thing worth while for the workload it will diminish. And scanModem already has a codelet directing Ubuntu/Kubuntu/etc users to Carlos site for the Intel537 packages. That is likely why queries for Intel537 help have become so few. Similarly for other packages for which can be easily Debianized/RPMed , it is worthwhile having the packages made whenever Someone will volunteer to do the period updates. Within scanModem and your site, there need only an output/1st_Readme.txt providing the URL for the installers. I'll work with Carlos & team off line a bit, to further see how all may benefit. MarvS On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:27 AM, Jacques Goldberg <goldberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Carlos, > > The cost of having two places where the same information is stored is that > they cannot and will never be synchronized. > The cost of having two or more sites preparing "versions" independently is > that very soon files carrying the same name will have very different > contents. > Net result: fooling potential users, in particular beginners, that is, > exactly the opposite of what you are trying to reach. > > Jacques > > > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Carlos Marcano wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:40:50 -0400 >> From: Carlos Marcano <c.marcano@xxxxxxxxx> >> To: Linmodems discussion <discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: Intel536ep and kernel 2.6.26 >> Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:41:48 +0300 (IDT) >> Resent-From: <Jacques.Goldberg@xxxxxxx> >> >> Hi Jeff and jayjwa. >> >> Are you guys working on Ubuntu? If so, could you please post your >> experiences at this site: >> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/ubuntu-modems> >> >> We are trying there to provide of binary packs (.deb) to other guys >> which /can't/don't know how to/don't want to/ compile the drivers for >> the 536ep and 537ep Intel chipsets and any help will be very very very >> apreciated. The admin of the site is Stephen Pinker (aka Sepero) who >> compiles the driver for the 536ep and I (Carlos Marcano - aka >> chuckman78) compile the 537ep driver. Sepero builds the packages for >> both of the drivers. >> >> We would be very happy to count with as much help as possible. >> >> Regards, >> >> Carlos. >> (chuckman78) >> >> Original messages: >> >> On 2008/7/21 jayjwa <jayjwa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > I've been using the Intel 536ep for quite some time now. >> > It requires a kernel module to work. The source has been >> > getting updated each time the kernel changes and breaks >> > something, but so far no changes to allow the module to >> > continue to compile under the latest kernel, 2.6.26 (at >> > the time of this writing). As I use this modem to connect >> > to the Internet, if I can't get the modem working again >> > I'm stuck not being able to update the kernel. >> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote: >> >> Hello, Jayjwa - >> >> I just upgraded to kernel 2.6.26, and found the same problems! >> >> >> The attached patch seems to be working for me so far, but I am >> by no means a kernel module guy, so any feedback is welcome... >> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, jayjwa <jayjwa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> That's excellect. I figured someone that knew C won't have much >> trouble. I'm building a new 2.6.26.2 right now. If it worked there, >> likely it will work fine here, too. I should be able to report back in >> a bit. Thanks. >> >> Say, can I keep you handy in case any other stuff breaks? ;) >> >
