[users] Monthly reminder

[Manuel Tuthill]

Much like my password gets emailed to me in plain text every month (Yes I
know I can turn it off) it?s time for the reminder that there is still
issues with the dkms-ndiswrapper package for C4.



The package as is doesn?t work but rpmforge don?t want to do anything about
it since some people may be able to get some use out of it. In the mean time
anyone who doesn?t know this must assume one of several things.



A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.

B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.

C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?

D: My hardware is broken.



Take you pick



Manuel





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100201/d017caa3/attachment.html

[Hugo van der Kooij]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.
B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.
C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?
D: My hardware is broken.

Well. I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong. Assuming things and not telling is the best way to block a road.
No one is getting anywhere that way.

Hugo.

[Manuel Tuthill]

Sorry Hugo,

It's been going on so long that I kind of assume that everyone on the list
knew the issues.

About 18 months ago I needed to get a wireless card working on C4, there
were no native drivers at the time so I needed to try ndiswrapper. Cue
dkms-ndiswrapper, the then current version didn't work so I spoke to Dag on
#centos who asked me to start rolling back version till I found one that did
and email him. I did this and emailed him the results. Which was that up to
1.38 worked later versions didn't. Ever since then I've been asking whats
going on.

It's been so long that I really can't remember what if any errors were
produced, If it is needed I can attempt to trace slightly more information
however from further conversations it seemed to be the case that
dkms-ndiswrapper wasn't going to be maintained, however it's current state I
feel is inapropriate.

Manuel


-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces at lists.rpmforge.net
[mailto:users-bounces at lists.rpmforge.net] On Behalf Of Hugo van der Kooij
Sent: 02 February 2010 06:27
To: users at lists.rpmforge.net
Subject: Re: [users] Monthly reminder

Post by Manuel Tuthill
A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.
B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.
C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?
D: My hardware is broken.

Well. I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong. Assuming things and not telling is the best way to block a road.
No one is getting anywhere that way.

Hugo.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
About 18 months ago I needed to get a wireless card working on C4, there
were no native drivers at the time so I needed to try ndiswrapper. Cue
dkms-ndiswrapper, the then current version didn't work so I spoke to Dag on
#centos who asked me to start rolling back version till I found one that did
and email him. I did this and emailed him the results. Which was that up to
1.38 worked later versions didn't. Ever since then I've been asking whats
going on.

I am no ndiswrapper expert, so I can't fix the problem properly, but
what I can do is to revert the SPEC to this version an ask Dag to purge
all the rest.

If you're able to come up with a patch / set of patches we would be
happy to review and apply them accordingly.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
If you're able to come up with a patch / set of patches we would be
happy to review and apply them accordingly.

I think ELREPO is now dealing with this mostly so simply purging the broken
ones will probably be sufficient, however it does leave a dead end in that
security issues may have been resolved which rpmforge users can't access.

AFAIK all the stuff elrepo builds is EL5 only. I've got an impression
that you were talking about ndiswrapper on EL4.

In what concerns the security issues, if you're willing to contribute
your time and knowledge to fix it, then you're welcome. Otherwise it is
the way it is.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
If you're able to come up with a patch / set of patches we would be
happy to review and apply them accordingly.

I think ELREPO is now dealing with this mostly so simply purging the broken
ones will probably be sufficient, however it does leave a dead end in that
security issues may have been resolved which rpmforge users can't access.

AFAIK all the stuff elrepo builds is EL5 only. I've got an impression
that you were talking about ndiswrapper on EL4.

In what concerns the security issues, if you're willing to contribute
your time and knowledge to fix it, then you're welcome. Otherwise it is
the way it is.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
If you're able to come up with a patch / set of patches we would be
happy to review and apply them accordingly.

I think ELREPO is now dealing with this mostly so simply purging the broken
ones will probably be sufficient, however it does leave a dead end in that
security issues may have been resolved which rpmforge users can't access.

AFAIK all the stuff elrepo builds is EL5 only. I've got an impression
that you were talking about ndiswrapper on EL4.

In what concerns the security issues, if you're willing to contribute
your time and knowledge to fix it, then you're welcome. Otherwise it is
the way it is.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
If you're able to come up with a patch / set of patches we would be
happy to review and apply them accordingly.

I think ELREPO is now dealing with this mostly so simply purging the broken
ones will probably be sufficient, however it does leave a dead end in that
security issues may have been resolved which rpmforge users can't access.

AFAIK all the stuff elrepo builds is EL5 only. I've got an impression
that you were talking about ndiswrapper on EL4.

In what concerns the security issues, if you're willing to contribute
your time and knowledge to fix it, then you're welcome. Otherwise it is
the way it is.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
If you're able to come up with a patch / set of patches we would be
happy to review and apply them accordingly.

I think ELREPO is now dealing with this mostly so simply purging the broken
ones will probably be sufficient, however it does leave a dead end in that
security issues may have been resolved which rpmforge users can't access.

AFAIK all the stuff elrepo builds is EL5 only. I've got an impression
that you were talking about ndiswrapper on EL4.

In what concerns the security issues, if you're willing to contribute
your time and knowledge to fix it, then you're welcome. Otherwise it is
the way it is.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
About 18 months ago I needed to get a wireless card working on C4, there
were no native drivers at the time so I needed to try ndiswrapper. Cue
dkms-ndiswrapper, the then current version didn't work so I spoke to Dag on
#centos who asked me to start rolling back version till I found one that did
and email him. I did this and emailed him the results. Which was that up to
1.38 worked later versions didn't. Ever since then I've been asking whats
going on.

I am no ndiswrapper expert, so I can't fix the problem properly, but
what I can do is to revert the SPEC to this version an ask Dag to purge
all the rest.

If you're able to come up with a patch / set of patches we would be
happy to review and apply them accordingly.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
About 18 months ago I needed to get a wireless card working on C4, there
were no native drivers at the time so I needed to try ndiswrapper. Cue
dkms-ndiswrapper, the then current version didn't work so I spoke to Dag on
#centos who asked me to start rolling back version till I found one that did
and email him. I did this and emailed him the results. Which was that up to
1.38 worked later versions didn't. Ever since then I've been asking whats
going on.

I am no ndiswrapper expert, so I can't fix the problem properly, but
what I can do is to revert the SPEC to this version an ask Dag to purge
all the rest.

If you're able to come up with a patch / set of patches we would be
happy to review and apply them accordingly.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
About 18 months ago I needed to get a wireless card working on C4, there
were no native drivers at the time so I needed to try ndiswrapper. Cue
dkms-ndiswrapper, the then current version didn't work so I spoke to Dag on
#centos who asked me to start rolling back version till I found one that did
and email him. I did this and emailed him the results. Which was that up to
1.38 worked later versions didn't. Ever since then I've been asking whats
going on.

I am no ndiswrapper expert, so I can't fix the problem properly, but
what I can do is to revert the SPEC to this version an ask Dag to purge
all the rest.

If you're able to come up with a patch / set of patches we would be
happy to review and apply them accordingly.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
About 18 months ago I needed to get a wireless card working on C4, there
were no native drivers at the time so I needed to try ndiswrapper. Cue
dkms-ndiswrapper, the then current version didn't work so I spoke to Dag on
#centos who asked me to start rolling back version till I found one that did
and email him. I did this and emailed him the results. Which was that up to
1.38 worked later versions didn't. Ever since then I've been asking whats
going on.

I am no ndiswrapper expert, so I can't fix the problem properly, but
what I can do is to revert the SPEC to this version an ask Dag to purge
all the rest.

If you're able to come up with a patch / set of patches we would be
happy to review and apply them accordingly.

[Steve Huff]

Post by Hugo van der Kooij
I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong.

Manuel's most recent report is here iirc:

http://lists.rpmforge.net/pipermail/users/2009-November/002795.html

i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

-shuff

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100202/69474288/attachment.bin

[Manuel Tuthill]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
AFAIK all the stuff elrepo builds is EL5 only. I've got an impression
that you were talking about ndiswrapper on EL4.

If elrepo only deals with EL5 then rpmforge should probably at least
maintain dkms-ndiswrapper for EL4

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
In what concerns the security issues, if you're willing to contribute
your time and knowledge to fix it, then you're welcome. Otherwise it is
the way it is.

I know of any particular security issues just mindful of the fact now or in
the future some may appear. Tis an issue with unmaintained software.

Regarding support I'm certainly willing to try and help out, however I'm
probably not the best, if someone wants me to do legwork if they can guide
I'm more than happy to help.

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

I can't either hence why I've been pushing for it since I can see reasons to
remove it. As for specs I'm not 100% of the implication so I'll say clear of
that.

Manuel

[Steve Huff]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
Regarding support I'm certainly willing to try and help out, however I'm
probably not the best, if someone wants me to do legwork if they can guide
I'm more than happy to help.

sure!

if i were in your shoes, this is what i would do:

1) put up a test system with CentOS 4 (you, i assume, already have
such a system)
2) get the latest dkms-ndiswrapper spec from SVN (http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/dkms-ndiswrapper/dkms-ndiswrapper.spec
)
3) make sure i have the necessary packages for development installed
(from RPMforge, you need rpm-macros-rpmforge, and it's useful to have
spectool as well)
4) make sure i have a non-root account on the test system that's set
up for RPM building (here's a nice document: http://www.owlriver.com/tips/non-root/)
5) put the dkms-ndiswrapper.spec in my SPECS directory
6) download the source (spectool is useful for this) and any necessary
patches (which will be in SVN) into my SOURCE directory
7) $ rpmbuild -ba ./SPECS/dkms-ndiswrapper.spec
8) if it doesn't build, look at the error messages and fix the problems
9) if it does build, install the package and try to use it
10) try to find out what is broken (Google, read documentation, etc.)
11) write a patch
12) change the specfile so that the patch is applied (good old http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/
if you don't know how to do this)
13) repeat steps 7-12 until you have a working package
14) $ diff -Naur dkms-ndiswrapper.spec-orig dkms-ndiswrapper.spec >
dkms-ndiswrapper-<version>.patch
15) email the patch to the <suggest at lists.rpmforge.net> list
16) ...
17) profit!

Post by Manuel Tuthill

Post by Steve Huff
i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

I can't either hence why I've been pushing for it since I can see reasons to
remove it. As for specs I'm not 100% of the implication so I'll say clear of
that.

moving specs to the vault just means that we're deciding that those
packages are obsolete and should no longer be built or updated; that
part of the message was aimed at the other maintainers.

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100204/406976dd/attachment.bin

[Manuel Tuthill]

Post by Steve Huff
1) put up a test system with CentOS 4

(*snip long list*)

Post by Steve Huff
17) profit!

Good job it's only 17 steps because I have to take a cab for more than 20!
Be done in an hour or so.

Honestly it's unlikely I'll ever get round to it, I help out on other open
source projects and running my own business means that time is tight anyway
however I'll try and do what I can. See you in another 18 months when I
probably get round to it (about C7 release time).

In the interim if someone could sort out the current situation to leave only
the decent relevant packages, I think it would be of benefit to the
community.

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Post by Steve Huff
1) put up a test system with CentOS 4

(*snip long list*)

Post by Steve Huff
17) profit!

Good job it's only 17 steps because I have to take a cab for more than 20!
Be done in an hour or so.

Honestly it's unlikely I'll ever get round to it, I help out on other open
source projects and running my own business means that time is tight anyway
however I'll try and do what I can. See you in another 18 months when I
probably get round to it (about C7 release time).

In the interim if someone could sort out the current situation to leave only
the decent relevant packages, I think it would be of benefit to the
community.

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Post by Steve Huff
1) put up a test system with CentOS 4

(*snip long list*)

Post by Steve Huff
17) profit!

Good job it's only 17 steps because I have to take a cab for more than 20!
Be done in an hour or so.

Honestly it's unlikely I'll ever get round to it, I help out on other open
source projects and running my own business means that time is tight anyway
however I'll try and do what I can. See you in another 18 months when I
probably get round to it (about C7 release time).

In the interim if someone could sort out the current situation to leave only
the decent relevant packages, I think it would be of benefit to the
community.

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Post by Steve Huff
1) put up a test system with CentOS 4

(*snip long list*)

Post by Steve Huff
17) profit!

Good job it's only 17 steps because I have to take a cab for more than 20!
Be done in an hour or so.

Honestly it's unlikely I'll ever get round to it, I help out on other open
source projects and running my own business means that time is tight anyway
however I'll try and do what I can. See you in another 18 months when I
probably get round to it (about C7 release time).

In the interim if someone could sort out the current situation to leave only
the decent relevant packages, I think it would be of benefit to the
community.

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Post by Steve Huff
1) put up a test system with CentOS 4

(*snip long list*)

Post by Steve Huff
17) profit!

Good job it's only 17 steps because I have to take a cab for more than 20!
Be done in an hour or so.

Honestly it's unlikely I'll ever get round to it, I help out on other open
source projects and running my own business means that time is tight anyway
however I'll try and do what I can. See you in another 18 months when I
probably get round to it (about C7 release time).

In the interim if someone could sort out the current situation to leave only
the decent relevant packages, I think it would be of benefit to the
community.

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Just a reminder that RPMforge is still distributing broken packages.

DKMS-ndiswrapper for C4

Have a nice month. :)

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Just a reminder that RPMforge is still distributing broken packages.

DKMS-ndiswrapper for C4

Have a nice month. :)

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Just a reminder that RPMforge is still distributing broken packages.

DKMS-ndiswrapper for C4

Have a nice month. :)

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Just a reminder that RPMforge is still distributing broken packages.

DKMS-ndiswrapper for C4

Have a nice month. :)

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Just a reminder that RPMforge is still distributing broken packages.

DKMS-ndiswrapper for C4

Have a nice month. :)

Manuel

[Steve Huff]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
Regarding support I'm certainly willing to try and help out, however I'm
probably not the best, if someone wants me to do legwork if they can guide
I'm more than happy to help.

sure!

if i were in your shoes, this is what i would do:

1) put up a test system with CentOS 4 (you, i assume, already have
such a system)
2) get the latest dkms-ndiswrapper spec from SVN (http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/dkms-ndiswrapper/dkms-ndiswrapper.spec
)
3) make sure i have the necessary packages for development installed
(from RPMforge, you need rpm-macros-rpmforge, and it's useful to have
spectool as well)
4) make sure i have a non-root account on the test system that's set
up for RPM building (here's a nice document: http://www.owlriver.com/tips/non-root/)
5) put the dkms-ndiswrapper.spec in my SPECS directory
6) download the source (spectool is useful for this) and any necessary
patches (which will be in SVN) into my SOURCE directory
7) $ rpmbuild -ba ./SPECS/dkms-ndiswrapper.spec
8) if it doesn't build, look at the error messages and fix the problems
9) if it does build, install the package and try to use it
10) try to find out what is broken (Google, read documentation, etc.)
11) write a patch
12) change the specfile so that the patch is applied (good old http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/
if you don't know how to do this)
13) repeat steps 7-12 until you have a working package
14) $ diff -Naur dkms-ndiswrapper.spec-orig dkms-ndiswrapper.spec >
dkms-ndiswrapper-<version>.patch
15) email the patch to the <suggest at lists.rpmforge.net> list
16) ...
17) profit!

Post by Manuel Tuthill

Post by Steve Huff
i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

I can't either hence why I've been pushing for it since I can see reasons to
remove it. As for specs I'm not 100% of the implication so I'll say clear of
that.

moving specs to the vault just means that we're deciding that those
packages are obsolete and should no longer be built or updated; that
part of the message was aimed at the other maintainers.

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100204/406976dd/attachment-0001.bin

[Steve Huff]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
Regarding support I'm certainly willing to try and help out, however I'm
probably not the best, if someone wants me to do legwork if they can guide
I'm more than happy to help.

sure!

if i were in your shoes, this is what i would do:

1) put up a test system with CentOS 4 (you, i assume, already have
such a system)
2) get the latest dkms-ndiswrapper spec from SVN (http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/dkms-ndiswrapper/dkms-ndiswrapper.spec
)
3) make sure i have the necessary packages for development installed
(from RPMforge, you need rpm-macros-rpmforge, and it's useful to have
spectool as well)
4) make sure i have a non-root account on the test system that's set
up for RPM building (here's a nice document: http://www.owlriver.com/tips/non-root/)
5) put the dkms-ndiswrapper.spec in my SPECS directory
6) download the source (spectool is useful for this) and any necessary
patches (which will be in SVN) into my SOURCE directory
7) $ rpmbuild -ba ./SPECS/dkms-ndiswrapper.spec
8) if it doesn't build, look at the error messages and fix the problems
9) if it does build, install the package and try to use it
10) try to find out what is broken (Google, read documentation, etc.)
11) write a patch
12) change the specfile so that the patch is applied (good old http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/
if you don't know how to do this)
13) repeat steps 7-12 until you have a working package
14) $ diff -Naur dkms-ndiswrapper.spec-orig dkms-ndiswrapper.spec >
dkms-ndiswrapper-<version>.patch
15) email the patch to the <suggest at lists.rpmforge.net> list
16) ...
17) profit!

Post by Manuel Tuthill

Post by Steve Huff
i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

I can't either hence why I've been pushing for it since I can see reasons to
remove it. As for specs I'm not 100% of the implication so I'll say clear of
that.

moving specs to the vault just means that we're deciding that those
packages are obsolete and should no longer be built or updated; that
part of the message was aimed at the other maintainers.

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100204/406976dd/attachment-0002.bin

[Steve Huff]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
Regarding support I'm certainly willing to try and help out, however I'm
probably not the best, if someone wants me to do legwork if they can guide
I'm more than happy to help.

sure!

if i were in your shoes, this is what i would do:

1) put up a test system with CentOS 4 (you, i assume, already have
such a system)
2) get the latest dkms-ndiswrapper spec from SVN (http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/dkms-ndiswrapper/dkms-ndiswrapper.spec
)
3) make sure i have the necessary packages for development installed
(from RPMforge, you need rpm-macros-rpmforge, and it's useful to have
spectool as well)
4) make sure i have a non-root account on the test system that's set
up for RPM building (here's a nice document: http://www.owlriver.com/tips/non-root/)
5) put the dkms-ndiswrapper.spec in my SPECS directory
6) download the source (spectool is useful for this) and any necessary
patches (which will be in SVN) into my SOURCE directory
7) $ rpmbuild -ba ./SPECS/dkms-ndiswrapper.spec
8) if it doesn't build, look at the error messages and fix the problems
9) if it does build, install the package and try to use it
10) try to find out what is broken (Google, read documentation, etc.)
11) write a patch
12) change the specfile so that the patch is applied (good old http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/
if you don't know how to do this)
13) repeat steps 7-12 until you have a working package
14) $ diff -Naur dkms-ndiswrapper.spec-orig dkms-ndiswrapper.spec >
dkms-ndiswrapper-<version>.patch
15) email the patch to the <suggest at lists.rpmforge.net> list
16) ...
17) profit!

Post by Manuel Tuthill

Post by Steve Huff
i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

I can't either hence why I've been pushing for it since I can see reasons to
remove it. As for specs I'm not 100% of the implication so I'll say clear of
that.

moving specs to the vault just means that we're deciding that those
packages are obsolete and should no longer be built or updated; that
part of the message was aimed at the other maintainers.

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100204/406976dd/attachment-0003.bin

[Steve Huff]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
Regarding support I'm certainly willing to try and help out, however I'm
probably not the best, if someone wants me to do legwork if they can guide
I'm more than happy to help.

sure!

if i were in your shoes, this is what i would do:

1) put up a test system with CentOS 4 (you, i assume, already have
such a system)
2) get the latest dkms-ndiswrapper spec from SVN (http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/dkms-ndiswrapper/dkms-ndiswrapper.spec
)
3) make sure i have the necessary packages for development installed
(from RPMforge, you need rpm-macros-rpmforge, and it's useful to have
spectool as well)
4) make sure i have a non-root account on the test system that's set
up for RPM building (here's a nice document: http://www.owlriver.com/tips/non-root/)
5) put the dkms-ndiswrapper.spec in my SPECS directory
6) download the source (spectool is useful for this) and any necessary
patches (which will be in SVN) into my SOURCE directory
7) $ rpmbuild -ba ./SPECS/dkms-ndiswrapper.spec
8) if it doesn't build, look at the error messages and fix the problems
9) if it does build, install the package and try to use it
10) try to find out what is broken (Google, read documentation, etc.)
11) write a patch
12) change the specfile so that the patch is applied (good old http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/
if you don't know how to do this)
13) repeat steps 7-12 until you have a working package
14) $ diff -Naur dkms-ndiswrapper.spec-orig dkms-ndiswrapper.spec >
dkms-ndiswrapper-<version>.patch
15) email the patch to the <suggest at lists.rpmforge.net> list
16) ...
17) profit!

Post by Manuel Tuthill

Post by Steve Huff
i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

I can't either hence why I've been pushing for it since I can see reasons to
remove it. As for specs I'm not 100% of the implication so I'll say clear of
that.

moving specs to the vault just means that we're deciding that those
packages are obsolete and should no longer be built or updated; that
part of the message was aimed at the other maintainers.

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100204/406976dd/attachment.sig>

[Manuel Tuthill]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
AFAIK all the stuff elrepo builds is EL5 only. I've got an impression
that you were talking about ndiswrapper on EL4.

If elrepo only deals with EL5 then rpmforge should probably at least
maintain dkms-ndiswrapper for EL4

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
In what concerns the security issues, if you're willing to contribute
your time and knowledge to fix it, then you're welcome. Otherwise it is
the way it is.

I know of any particular security issues just mindful of the fact now or in
the future some may appear. Tis an issue with unmaintained software.

Regarding support I'm certainly willing to try and help out, however I'm
probably not the best, if someone wants me to do legwork if they can guide
I'm more than happy to help.

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

I can't either hence why I've been pushing for it since I can see reasons to
remove it. As for specs I'm not 100% of the implication so I'll say clear of
that.

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
AFAIK all the stuff elrepo builds is EL5 only. I've got an impression
that you were talking about ndiswrapper on EL4.

If elrepo only deals with EL5 then rpmforge should probably at least
maintain dkms-ndiswrapper for EL4

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
In what concerns the security issues, if you're willing to contribute
your time and knowledge to fix it, then you're welcome. Otherwise it is
the way it is.

I know of any particular security issues just mindful of the fact now or in
the future some may appear. Tis an issue with unmaintained software.

Regarding support I'm certainly willing to try and help out, however I'm
probably not the best, if someone wants me to do legwork if they can guide
I'm more than happy to help.

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

I can't either hence why I've been pushing for it since I can see reasons to
remove it. As for specs I'm not 100% of the implication so I'll say clear of
that.

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
AFAIK all the stuff elrepo builds is EL5 only. I've got an impression
that you were talking about ndiswrapper on EL4.

If elrepo only deals with EL5 then rpmforge should probably at least
maintain dkms-ndiswrapper for EL4

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
In what concerns the security issues, if you're willing to contribute
your time and knowledge to fix it, then you're welcome. Otherwise it is
the way it is.

I know of any particular security issues just mindful of the fact now or in
the future some may appear. Tis an issue with unmaintained software.

Regarding support I'm certainly willing to try and help out, however I'm
probably not the best, if someone wants me to do legwork if they can guide
I'm more than happy to help.

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

I can't either hence why I've been pushing for it since I can see reasons to
remove it. As for specs I'm not 100% of the implication so I'll say clear of
that.

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
AFAIK all the stuff elrepo builds is EL5 only. I've got an impression
that you were talking about ndiswrapper on EL4.

If elrepo only deals with EL5 then rpmforge should probably at least
maintain dkms-ndiswrapper for EL4

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
In what concerns the security issues, if you're willing to contribute
your time and knowledge to fix it, then you're welcome. Otherwise it is
the way it is.

I know of any particular security issues just mindful of the fact now or in
the future some may appear. Tis an issue with unmaintained software.

Regarding support I'm certainly willing to try and help out, however I'm
probably not the best, if someone wants me to do legwork if they can guide
I'm more than happy to help.

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

I can't either hence why I've been pushing for it since I can see reasons to
remove it. As for specs I'm not 100% of the implication so I'll say clear of
that.

Manuel

[Manuel Tuthill]

Sorry Hugo,

It's been going on so long that I kind of assume that everyone on the list
knew the issues.

About 18 months ago I needed to get a wireless card working on C4, there
were no native drivers at the time so I needed to try ndiswrapper. Cue
dkms-ndiswrapper, the then current version didn't work so I spoke to Dag on
#centos who asked me to start rolling back version till I found one that did
and email him. I did this and emailed him the results. Which was that up to
1.38 worked later versions didn't. Ever since then I've been asking whats
going on.

It's been so long that I really can't remember what if any errors were
produced, If it is needed I can attempt to trace slightly more information
however from further conversations it seemed to be the case that
dkms-ndiswrapper wasn't going to be maintained, however it's current state I
feel is inapropriate.

Manuel


-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces at lists.rpmforge.net
[mailto:users-bounces at lists.rpmforge.net] On Behalf Of Hugo van der Kooij
Sent: 02 February 2010 06:27
To: users at lists.rpmforge.net
Subject: Re: [users] Monthly reminder

Post by Manuel Tuthill
A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.
B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.
C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?
D: My hardware is broken.

Well. I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong. Assuming things and not telling is the best way to block a road.
No one is getting anywhere that way.

Hugo.

[Steve Huff]

Post by Hugo van der Kooij
I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong.

Manuel's most recent report is here iirc:

http://lists.rpmforge.net/pipermail/users/2009-November/002795.html

i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

-shuff

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100202/69474288/attachment-0001.bin

[Manuel Tuthill]

Sorry Hugo,

It's been going on so long that I kind of assume that everyone on the list
knew the issues.

About 18 months ago I needed to get a wireless card working on C4, there
were no native drivers at the time so I needed to try ndiswrapper. Cue
dkms-ndiswrapper, the then current version didn't work so I spoke to Dag on
#centos who asked me to start rolling back version till I found one that did
and email him. I did this and emailed him the results. Which was that up to
1.38 worked later versions didn't. Ever since then I've been asking whats
going on.

It's been so long that I really can't remember what if any errors were
produced, If it is needed I can attempt to trace slightly more information
however from further conversations it seemed to be the case that
dkms-ndiswrapper wasn't going to be maintained, however it's current state I
feel is inapropriate.

Manuel


-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces at lists.rpmforge.net
[mailto:users-bounces at lists.rpmforge.net] On Behalf Of Hugo van der Kooij
Sent: 02 February 2010 06:27
To: users at lists.rpmforge.net
Subject: Re: [users] Monthly reminder

Post by Manuel Tuthill
A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.
B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.
C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?
D: My hardware is broken.

Well. I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong. Assuming things and not telling is the best way to block a road.
No one is getting anywhere that way.

Hugo.

[Steve Huff]

Post by Hugo van der Kooij
I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong.

Manuel's most recent report is here iirc:

http://lists.rpmforge.net/pipermail/users/2009-November/002795.html

i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

-shuff

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100202/69474288/attachment-0002.bin

[Manuel Tuthill]

Sorry Hugo,

It's been going on so long that I kind of assume that everyone on the list
knew the issues.

About 18 months ago I needed to get a wireless card working on C4, there
were no native drivers at the time so I needed to try ndiswrapper. Cue
dkms-ndiswrapper, the then current version didn't work so I spoke to Dag on
#centos who asked me to start rolling back version till I found one that did
and email him. I did this and emailed him the results. Which was that up to
1.38 worked later versions didn't. Ever since then I've been asking whats
going on.

It's been so long that I really can't remember what if any errors were
produced, If it is needed I can attempt to trace slightly more information
however from further conversations it seemed to be the case that
dkms-ndiswrapper wasn't going to be maintained, however it's current state I
feel is inapropriate.

Manuel


-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces at lists.rpmforge.net
[mailto:users-bounces at lists.rpmforge.net] On Behalf Of Hugo van der Kooij
Sent: 02 February 2010 06:27
To: users at lists.rpmforge.net
Subject: Re: [users] Monthly reminder

Post by Manuel Tuthill
A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.
B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.
C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?
D: My hardware is broken.

Well. I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong. Assuming things and not telling is the best way to block a road.
No one is getting anywhere that way.

Hugo.

[Steve Huff]

Post by Hugo van der Kooij
I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong.

Manuel's most recent report is here iirc:

http://lists.rpmforge.net/pipermail/users/2009-November/002795.html

i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

-shuff

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100202/69474288/attachment-0003.bin

[Manuel Tuthill]

Sorry Hugo,

It's been going on so long that I kind of assume that everyone on the list
knew the issues.

About 18 months ago I needed to get a wireless card working on C4, there
were no native drivers at the time so I needed to try ndiswrapper. Cue
dkms-ndiswrapper, the then current version didn't work so I spoke to Dag on
#centos who asked me to start rolling back version till I found one that did
and email him. I did this and emailed him the results. Which was that up to
1.38 worked later versions didn't. Ever since then I've been asking whats
going on.

It's been so long that I really can't remember what if any errors were
produced, If it is needed I can attempt to trace slightly more information
however from further conversations it seemed to be the case that
dkms-ndiswrapper wasn't going to be maintained, however it's current state I
feel is inapropriate.

Manuel


-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces at lists.rpmforge.net
[mailto:users-bounces at lists.rpmforge.net] On Behalf Of Hugo van der Kooij
Sent: 02 February 2010 06:27
To: users at lists.rpmforge.net
Subject: Re: [users] Monthly reminder

Post by Manuel Tuthill
A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.
B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.
C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?
D: My hardware is broken.

Well. I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong. Assuming things and not telling is the best way to block a road.
No one is getting anywhere that way.

Hugo.

[Steve Huff]

Post by Hugo van der Kooij
I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong.

Manuel's most recent report is here iirc:

http://lists.rpmforge.net/pipermail/users/2009-November/002795.html

i can't think of a strong argument against removing el4 dkms-
ndiswrapper > 1.38 from the repo, and certainly we should put the dkms-
ndiswrapper spec (and probably the rest of the dkms-* specs as well)
in the vault.

-shuff

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100202/69474288/attachment.sig>

[Manuel Tuthill]

Much like my password gets emailed to me in plain text every month (Yes I
know I can turn it off) it?s time for the reminder that there is still
issues with the dkms-ndiswrapper package for C4.



The package as is doesn?t work but rpmforge don?t want to do anything about
it since some people may be able to get some use out of it. In the mean time
anyone who doesn?t know this must assume one of several things.



A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.

B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.

C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?

D: My hardware is broken.



Take you pick



Manuel





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100201/d017caa3/attachment-0001.html

[Hugo van der Kooij]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.
B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.
C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?
D: My hardware is broken.

Well. I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong. Assuming things and not telling is the best way to block a road.
No one is getting anywhere that way.

Hugo.

[Manuel Tuthill]

Much like my password gets emailed to me in plain text every month (Yes I
know I can turn it off) it?s time for the reminder that there is still
issues with the dkms-ndiswrapper package for C4.



The package as is doesn?t work but rpmforge don?t want to do anything about
it since some people may be able to get some use out of it. In the mean time
anyone who doesn?t know this must assume one of several things.



A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.

B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.

C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?

D: My hardware is broken.



Take you pick



Manuel





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100201/d017caa3/attachment-0002.html

[Hugo van der Kooij]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.
B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.
C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?
D: My hardware is broken.

Well. I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong. Assuming things and not telling is the best way to block a road.
No one is getting anywhere that way.

Hugo.

[Manuel Tuthill]

Much like my password gets emailed to me in plain text every month (Yes I
know I can turn it off) it?s time for the reminder that there is still
issues with the dkms-ndiswrapper package for C4.



The package as is doesn?t work but rpmforge don?t want to do anything about
it since some people may be able to get some use out of it. In the mean time
anyone who doesn?t know this must assume one of several things.



A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.

B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.

C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?

D: My hardware is broken.



Take you pick



Manuel





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100201/d017caa3/attachment-0003.html

[Hugo van der Kooij]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.
B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.
C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?
D: My hardware is broken.

Well. I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong. Assuming things and not telling is the best way to block a road.
No one is getting anywhere that way.

Hugo.

[Manuel Tuthill]

Much like my password gets emailed to me in plain text every month (Yes I
know I can turn it off) it?s time for the reminder that there is still
issues with the dkms-ndiswrapper package for C4.



The package as is doesn?t work but rpmforge don?t want to do anything about
it since some people may be able to get some use out of it. In the mean time
anyone who doesn?t know this must assume one of several things.



A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.

B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.

C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?

D: My hardware is broken.



Take you pick



Manuel





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100201/d017caa3/attachment-0004.html>

[Hugo van der Kooij]

Post by Manuel Tuthill
A: rpmforge know it?s broken and don?t care.
B: rpmforge don?t know it?s broken so I should tell them.
C: I?m doing it wrong ?my Linux is bad perhaps I should go back to windows?
D: My hardware is broken.

Well. I can not recall having seen a detailed report on what might be
wrong. Assuming things and not telling is the best way to block a road.
No one is getting anywhere that way.

Hugo.