Updates in svn

[Kel Modderman]

Loïc Minier wrote:
>         Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2006, Kel Modderman wrote:
>   
>>    * wpasupplicant would require an update to include support for
>>      madwifi-ng, and that would not *not* be compatible with a madwifi
>>      interface using older drivers, however is am co-maintainer of
>>      wpasupplicant, and have been modifying it locally to support
>>      madwifi-ng for a long time
>>     
>
>  Ok, of what I understood of wpasupplicant, it has various
>  backends/drivers: do you think it would be possible to introduce a new
>  madwifi-ng backend to stay compatible for a while with the old madwifi,
>  or is it simply not worth it?  In both cases, I could imagine a
>  madwifi-ng and a madwifi-ng-enabled wpasupplicant sitting in
>  experimental quite soonish.
>   

Not possible, I already discussed this with Jouni, upstream hostap 
developer. I co-maintain a joint Ubuntu/Debian wpasupplicant package, so 
I also must co-ordinate the madwifi=>madwifi-ng transition with them. I 
have patches to the packages for this already, just ask me when the time 
comes :-)
>   
>>    * same situation for hostapd, although that maintainer has already
>>      included madwifi-ng headers in spite of the madwifi version
>>      actually in debian. To make things worse, the headers he includes
>>      have changed in upstream madwifi . . . It would also require an
>>      update to work 100% with current madwifi-ng
>>     
>
>  Ok, this is one point that will need to be addressed when madwifi-ng is
>  to be uploaded to unstable.
>   

Fine, i have patches to the debian packages already for this, just ask 
me when that time comes :-)
>   
>>    * kismet would also require a svn patch/update to work with
>>      madwifi-ng, although, i believe kismet has planned to better
>>      support madwifi-ng in the near future (maybe a new release too)
>>     
>
>  Same question as for wpasupplicant, would it be possible to support
>  both interfaces (without too much work)?
>   

It supports both interfaces fine. But like I said, upstream has already 
announced they will spend more time on madwifi-ng compatability in the 
near future, so this won't be much of a problem. If need be, I have 
patches to the debian package already for this, but it would be better 
to wait for some upstream changes and/or release for this one.
>   
>> It'd be absolutely fantastic to upload it to experimental (right now 
>> even!)
>>     
>
>  Ok, I'm putting that on my TODO list.  Perhaps the ftpmasters won't
>  like having two source packages, in which case I will rename it.
>   

Please, let me know about any name changes before that happens. This 
package is already in circulation with many debian users. It is already 
used by Voyage linux (an embedded wifi distributions based on debian) 
and Kanotix, and has been advertised on the madwifi.org wiki for  long 
time, with detailed instructions about howto use it. So, I would feel 
responsible for any radical changes that may affect these users, and 
would like the chance to contact some people and arrange a few things 
before such a change (wiki updates, email a person or two to inform of 
new location of source package, etc).

Anyway, couldn't we simply rename the source package and still have it 
create madwifi-ng-* binaries? There is already code in place to allow 
for seamless upgrades from madwifi=>madwifi-ng. What do you think about 
this? It would avoid confusion about the origin of the sources, and also 
minimise problems wit h upgrade path's.

If this is the case, I would happily do this in the evening, to save you 
the time.

>  Thanks for the information.
>
>    Bye.

No problem, Kel.