| Summary: | Stabilize =net-misc/connman-0.75 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Pacho Ramos <pacho> |
| Component: | [OLD] Keywording and Stabilization | Assignee: | Robert Piasek (RETIRED) <dagger> |
| Status: | RESOLVED OBSOLETE | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | Keywords: | STABLEREQ |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Bug Depends on: | 384733, 386121, 386139, 387065 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Pacho Ramos
2011-02-01 19:58:27 UTC
Hi, To be honest connman development is moving so fast and every new version brings new features. That's why I remove old version as quick as new ones appear. If you want to stabilise it, the best candidate would be 67-r1. Other option could be to use.mask connman evolution USE flag for not needing to stabilize it just now, do you think would it be a better option? Personally I believe connman and ofono should stay away from stable for now. If you want to stabilise something which depends on it, I would suggest using use.mask. OK, we will then stabilize an evolution version not requiring this AFAICT ;-) connman up to version 0.68 retains some compatibility with 'wireless-tools' ie iwconfig after which you need the newer wireless 'iw crda wireless-regdb' which is what I have though unsuccessful with both ath9k_ht and p54pci connecting with connman to version 0.72 and the correct kernel version of course. As for eth0 or bridging and connman haven't bothered to try yet since I don't need something like this for eth0 support ;-) Looks like 0.72 and 0.68 should be stable targets ----snip-------------------- Message: 4 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 16:33:07 +0200 From: Samuel Ortiz <deleted> To: connman dev list <deleted> Subject: ANNOUNCE: ConnMan 0.72 Message-ID: <deleted> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi All, ConnMan 0.72 was released on March 30th, 2011. We decided to cut this one since we were about to introduce the initial session API implementation. As a consequence, this was a fairly quiet one. The main 0.72 feature is our 6to4 experimental support, which tries to open a 6to4 tunnel whenever our IPv6 settings are set to auto while not getting any RAs. Thanks to Jukka Rissanen for that. We also got several memory leak fixes from Daniel Wagner, an oFono plugin fix from Mohamed Abbas, a DHCP one from Lucas De Marchi (ProFUSION). We also made our core DHCP code a bit smarter by comparing old and new IP settings when getting a DHCP renewal. You can fetch signed tarballs for ConnMan 0.72 [1] [2], but you can also get the latest code from our git tree [3]. Cheers, Samuel. -------------/snip----------- Is any connman version ready to be stabilized? (In reply to comment #6) > Is any connman version ready to be stabilized? ping As talked with Nirbheek, we will skip this for now again, but this will probably hit us again in the future ;) Well, you know, the same as always ;) No previous stable, no risk of introducing an regression -> CC amd64 x86 (In reply to comment #10) > No previous stable, no risk of introducing an regression -> CC amd64 x86 It requires net-misc/ofono, same maintainer, please choise the version and edit the summary. amd64: and more; needs more dep packages including header files. one found is =net-wireless/wimax-tools-1.4.5 ~amd64 (In reply to comment #12) > amd64: > > and more; needs more dep packages including header files. > > one found is =net-wireless/wimax-tools-1.4.5 ~amd64 Looks other bugs on depends on. With bug 386139 it became clear we can't stabilize 0.75 yet because it needs linux-headers from bug 384733. Let's try 0.73 instead? And if that is a no-go, then this will have to wait again. And 0.73 is useless with our current stable iptables. Removing amd64/x86 from CC. Can't stabilize connman. amd64/x86: Please test & stabilize this package after bug 384733 where you are in CC list now too. amd64 see bug #387065 CC back amd64 when the bugs on "Depends On" are fixed. I will ask for fast-track of 0.78 instead. Thank you. |