The current stable, 0.3.35_p20060521 does not build on current stable hardened kernel. Thanks!
Does anyone from the arch team have hardware to test this? If not, we can let maintainer handle stabilization now and in the future.
(In reply to comment #1) > Does anyone from the arch team have hardware to test this? If not, we can let > maintainer handle stabilization now and in the future. Stephen, please go on with stabilisations yourself. We can't really test it.
I'm willing to test if it will help as I would like to see acx-0.3.35_p20070101 go stable as well. Of course this test would be just on one PC with one wireless card so it won't exactly be an exhaustive test, perhaps if the OP does the same?
I'm building a distro based on gentoo so I don't have an acx personally. I have a user close to here that uses acx though. I could upgrade his router but I will not have time until after vacation next week.
Any luck ??
(In reply to comment #5) > Any luck ?? Not from me. I was looking for a positive "yes, it will help" from my question "I'm willing to test if it will help". I don't want to waste my time by doing some testing only for it to make no difference. It is frustrating holding the kernel at 2.6.19-r5 but other than that it's no big deal for me. I really like Gentoo but not having a coherent set of stable packages is one of its major weaknesses IMHO.
ACX-100 crashes always with my dwl-650+ on yenta socket for uknown reason when associating. I request removal from portage / some comment to point to NDISwrapper
(In reply to comment #7) > ACX-100 crashes always with my dwl-650+ on yenta socket for uknown reason when > associating. I request removal from portage / some comment to point to > NDISwrapper > From the acx100 website (http://acx100.sourceforge.net) <quote> (plus, the 650+ seems to be defective/problematic much more often than other cards, in my experience) </quote> I don't think this is a good reason for the Gentoo package to _not_ be stable as it's an issue with the driver and / or chipset.
This is going to need some love, or otherwise it's gonna get scrubbed from 2007.1.
Christian - can you explain - seems to build fine here on 2.6.22-gentoo-r5.
Re-assign to maintainer-needed due to total lack of maintainer activity.
(In reply to comment #11) > Re-assign to maintainer-needed due to total lack of maintainer activity. > What a shame! (but totally understandable). I maintain a few ebuilds in the Sunrise overlay, I _could_ maintain it there but I haven't a lot of time and I'd have to learn how to make ebuilds for kernel modules. Maybe this could be a backup plan if no maintainer is forthcoming?
So, does 0.3.35_p20070101 work for you?
(In reply to comment #13) > So, does 0.3.35_p20070101 work for you? It works for me and so does 0.3.37_p20080112. Thank-you to Stephen Bennett, Stefan Schweizer and Thomas S. Howard. Has Stephen stepped forward as the maintainer?
(In reply to comment #13) > So, does 0.3.35_p20070101 work for you? I have been running with this version for over a year now with no problems. I upgraded to 0.3.37_p20080112 a week ago and this also seems to work well and be stable.
Had problems with 0.3.35_p20060521 compiling, so unmasked 0.3.37_p20080112. Emerged with no problems, been using for a week now. Using DWL-650+, 2.6.20-gentoo-r8 #1 PREEMPT Thu Jul 5 19:42:36 2007 i586 Mobile Pentium MMX GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
(In reply to comment #16) > Had problems with 0.3.35_p20060521 compiling, so unmasked 0.3.37_p20080112. > Emerged with no problems, been using for a week now. Using DWL-650+, > 2.6.20-gentoo-r8 #1 PREEMPT Thu Jul 5 19:42:36 2007 i586 Mobile Pentium MMX > GenuineIntel GNU/Linux Same for me with 2.6.23-gentoo-r9 using a DWL-520+
this version of the driver doesnt build with current kernels, so it wont make it to stable. please also see bug #229459