Re: Question to devs: ipw2200 w/ RADIOTAP/PROMISCUOUS

On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 08:44:34AM -0800, James Ketrenos wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > users are asking me whether ATrpms could enable some commented by
> > default parts of the drivers. For ipw2200 it's about
> > CONFIG_IPW2200_RADIOTAP and CONFIG_IPW2200_PROMISCUOUS.
> > 
> > What is the reason for commenting them and not enabling by default?
> > And if it's not due to some no-go issues (like stability/maturity of
> > code) would the devs ack packagers to enable them?
> 
> They are not a part of any formal testing plan; so we don't really know
> how many people are using them, how stable they are for those users, or
> whether having them enabled negatively impacts non-users of those
> features.  We typically only enable by default those features that are a
> part of our formal testing cycles (there have been some variances to
> that in the past due to some oversight).
> 
> So -- there is no quantifiable reason not to enable those features in
> the packages you build.  I assume that some users are using the radiotap
> and promiscuous modes (I tend to always edit them to be enabled on all
> of my installs) and we haven't seen an influx of issues since their
> introduction.

BTW, a bit OT for the ipw2100-devel list, but I've also had request to
enable monitor mode for 3945. Does the same apply there?

> I think toggling the default to =y in non .0 versions would be fine.

ATM ipw2200 has no non .0 version, people requesting to add these
features not want to downgrade to 1.1.4 for example.

> Toggling to =y in the stable releases could (theoretically) cause a user
> some grief if there was ever a problem and they tried to resolve it
> through Intel Customer Support vs. through the myriad of web forums and
> mailing lists.  Even that, however, is likely pretty low risk.  If we
> see lots of problems emerge as a result, you could always toggle them
> back to =n.
> 
> Or maybe provide both packages (foo.rpm and foo-all-enabled.rpm)?

That's difficult, the two package sets would have to "Conflict" with
each other and not all depsolvers handle this gracefully, especially
when it comes to updates. But I'll think about it a bit more, and see
whether this still holds with the latest depsolvers.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642

_______________________________________________
ipw2100-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipw2100-devel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFUIROQBVS1GOamfERAim5AJ9k/GPTbCXbg9Iw+iezm5fZ1+m9LQCeNcQG
0y9PJWo9Nj2fEg691gVJyvs=
=LAEY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----