[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ipw3945 packaging



On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 06:14:27PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 18:07 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:00:16PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 17:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:08:27AM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > > > > The answer as always for drivers in the main kernel package is "get it
> > > > > upstream".  And for better or worse, I think that the regulatory daemon
> > > > > is likely to be a big sticking point for the driver going upstream :(
> > > > 
> > > > It sounded like this was more liked than the firmware approach.
> > > 
> > > By who?  I read exactly the opposite :)
> > 
> > I read an article by thl on heise.de (in german), where it was
> > supposed to be considered better that propriatry kernel stuff
> > or. Maybe I should check the original tone.
> 
> proprietary kernel stuff != firmware :)

sorry, I'll take it back. I found the article (for German readers):

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/meldung/70092&words=ipw3945

and the quote was from Dax Kelson:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/32622

So, indeed no love for ipw3945.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgprWx8Cb2hPw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]