On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 04:07:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:40:52AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:58:13AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > Ok, how about the following patch. Is it acceptable to everyone? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > --- > > > init/Kconfig | 13 +++++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > --- gregkh-2.6.orig/init/Kconfig > > > +++ gregkh-2.6/init/Kconfig > > > @@ -290,8 +290,17 @@ config SYSFS_DEPRECATED > > > that belong to a class, back into the /sys/class heirachy, in > > > order to support older versions of udev. > > > > > > - If you are using a distro that was released in 2006 or later, > > > - it should be safe to say N here. > > > + If you are using an OpenSuSE, Gentoo, Ubuntu, or Fedora > > > + release from 2007 or later, it should be safe to say N here. > > > + > > > + If you are using Debian or other distros that are slow to > > > + update HAL, please say Y here. > > >... > > > > The sane solution seems to be to enable SYSFS_DEPRECATED unconditionally > > for all users, and schedule it's removal for mid-2008 (or later). > > > > 12 months after the first _release_ of a HAL that can live without seems > > to be the first time when we can consider getting rid of it, since all > > distributions with at least one release a year should ship it by then. > > > > Currently, SYSFS_DEPRECATED is only a trap for users. > > Huh? > > No, again, I've been using this just fine for about 6 months now. > > And what about all of the servers not using HAL/NetworkManager? > And what about all of the embedded systems not using either? > > So to not allow this to be turned off by people who might want to (we > want this for OpenSuSE 10.3, and Fedora 7 also will want this, as will > other distros released this year), is pretty heavy-handed. > > It also will work in OpenSuSE 10.2 which is already released, and I > think Fedora 6, but I've only limited experience with these. > > Oh, and Gentoo works just fine, and has been for the past 6 months. > > I would just prefer to come up with an acceptable set of wording that > will work to properly warn people. > > I proposed one such wording which some people took as a slam against > Debian, which it really was not at all. > > Does someone else want to propose some other wording instead? Back up a bit. Let's review: Problem: NetworkManager stopped working with my ipw2200 on Debian/unstable Theory A: It broke because I'm not running an as-yet-unreleased HAL. Then we should revert the patch pronto because it's an unqualified regression. Theory B: It broke because I'm not running relatively recent HAL. By all accounts I'm running the latest and greatest HAL and Network Manager, more than recent enough to work. Theory C: It broke because I've got some goofy config. My setup passes no arguments to either. The HAL config file is completely bare-bones and there's no sign of any configuration files for Network Manager. Theory D: It broke for some nebulous Debian-related reason. That's a bunch of unhelpful crap. Can we come up with an actual theory for what's wrong with my setup, please? Like, perhaps: Theory E: There's some undiagnosed new breakage that this introduces that no else hit until it went into mainline. Hmmm, this one sounds more promising. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
