Marv,
I of course completely endorse your view.
My point was to suggest that ALL relevant files should be at one place
with one person or two from that place in charge of packaging and naming
the files.
If Carlos and coworkers are willing to work that way, committed for
years, they are most welcome (I am managing linmodems.technion.ac.il
since 8 years now, and I urge for stability).
I further emphasize that if they take this responsibility we
(linmodems.technion.ac.il) should go out of business from their well
defined field, otherwise I do not see how we can prevent havoc.
In that case of 536ep, Philippe too may have a word to say.
I send this to him Bcc for privacy.
Jacques
Marvin Stodolsky wrote:
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? ;)
