Hi, I think that Carlos downloaded my work and packaged the drivers for Ubuntu. I went to http://groups.google.com/group/ubuntu-modems site and did NOT want to connect due to Google NOT known to preserve privacy and also known to make much business using advertisements on people's information, stealing their time and their efforts to make more money. Ubuntu users being generally Linux newbies coming from the MS Windows world, packaging my work for a transparent installation usage is a good idea. A reproach to Carlos : this is so transparent that the above URL does not include the Intel-Readme.txt which is available at the linmodems site and helps troubleshooting the driver. Why did Carlos not use the linmodems site or cross-referenced it ? Remaking the world seems so easy instead of taking the time to understand how it is organized ! - http://vouters.dyndns.org:8080/ Philippe Vouters (Fontainebleau/France) Le mardi 12 août 2008 à 15:58 +0300, Jacques Goldberg a écrit : > > 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? ;) > >>> >
