Hi Julian, On Monday 17 March 2008 22:04:57 Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > What warning do they need? It is true an orphan package may result due to > > the > > upgrade path, but do you really think its worth throwing away the protection > > the ndiswrapper-common wrappers give to clean up that orphan? Or do you > > think the wrappers serve no purpose? > There's no need to change the packaging style, it was only a suggestion. In > some > cases, wrapper scripts may be useful, but they need to be improved: > > Looking at the code of the wrapper, it always uses the latest version of the > utils it can find. > > Example: > * Kernel A, module compatible to utils 1.9 > * Kernel B, module compatible to utils 2.0 > * You boot Kernel A, ndiswrapper would use ndiswrapper-2.0 > => It won't work, because only 1.9 is supported
Not correct. Only when -v is given as only argument to /sbin/loadndiswrapper will it search for the latest version. This only happens when loadndiswrapper is called interactively by a human. When called by ndiswrapper kernel module (loader.c) the loadndiswrapper wrapper script is given multiple arguments, the 3rd argument is the utils API version number. The utils version requested by the module is then used if installed. > > Therefore, you need to get the supported version from the module, using > something like > modinfo -p ndiswrapper | sed -n 's/^utils_version:.*(read only: > \([0-9\.]*\)).*/\1/p' This would affect only the ndiswrapper wrapper script, and would give advantage only in use case when user decides to interactively install/reinstall ndis drivers for an older kernel module that requires an older /usr/sbin/ndiswrapper than the latest installed. > > As Ubuntu simply removed the -1.1 package, we should maybe just do the same. O.k. Thanks, Kel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
