Joey Hess wrote:
> Andres Salomon wrote:
>>> Currently there is a very nasty trap for anyone upgrading a system that
>>> relies on ndiswrapper for its networking from stable to testing.
>> What nasty trap is that? The fact that the version in testing is so
>> old?
>
> I upgraded everything, which
Andres Salomon wrote:
> > Currently there is a very nasty trap for anyone upgrading a system that
> > relies on ndiswrapper for its networking from stable to testing.
>
> What nasty trap is that? The fact that the version in testing is so
> old?
I upgraded everything, which included switching to
Joey Hess wrote:
> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> Yep, well aware of that. I've been waiting for the kernel team to do
>> something about binary kernel modules in order to allow ndiswrapper to
>> transition to testing (I have no interest in manually dealing w/ binary
>> modules other than for a release)
Andres Salomon wrote:
> Yep, well aware of that. I've been waiting for the kernel team to do
> something about binary kernel modules in order to allow ndiswrapper to
> transition to testing (I have no interest in manually dealing w/ binary
> modules other than for a release). Unfortunately, I hav
Joey Hess wrote:
> Package: ndiswrapper-source
> Severity: grave
> Version: 1.1-4
>
> This package FTBFS (using module-assistant) with the 2.6.15-1-8 kernel in
> testing, which makes ndiswrapper ususable in testing.
>
> The 1.8 version in unstable works ok, but is blocked by various issues
> for
Package: ndiswrapper-source
Severity: grave
Version: 1.1-4
This package FTBFS (using module-assistant) with the 2.6.15-1-8 kernel in
testing, which makes ndiswrapper ususable in testing.
The 1.8 version in unstable works ok, but is blocked by various issues
for a long time. :-(
-- System Informa
6 matches
Mail list logo
