On 17 February 2014 17:54, Frederick Grose wrote:
> I feel naive about the wireless stack and NetworkManager behavior
> (which changed so recently).
>
> For example,
> How does the behavior change with rfkill?
>
This was easy enough to test, the device is still listed with state
unavailable.
Ho
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> It seems like that should be good enough Frederick?
>
>
> On Monday, 17 February 2014, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>>
>> We can't move to F20 in XOs, then from our point of view,
>> would be good make it compatible with NM 0.9.8
>>
>> To identif
It seems like that should be good enough Frederick?
On Monday, 17 February 2014, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> We can't move to F20 in XOs, then from our point of view,
> would be good make it compatible with NM 0.9.8
>
> To identify version, in my system I can do:
>
> from gi.repository import NMClie
We can't move to F20 in XOs, then from our point of view,
would be good make it compatible with NM 0.9.8
To identify version, in my system I can do:
from gi.repository import NMClient
client = NMClient.Client()
client.get_version()
'0.9.8.1'
Is this good enough?
Gonzalo
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014
Here is the patch btw
https://github.com/FGrose/sugar/commit/102dd5f2147a4ddb0ce516f2d1c5907defbbba93
On 17 February 2014 15:13, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Frederick Grose posted a pull request which hides the wireless control
> panel bits if no wireless device is present. To work properl
Hi,
Frederick Grose posted a pull request which hides the wireless control
panel bits if no wireless device is present. To work properly that requires
NetworkManager 0.9.9 which is in F20.
I suppose this would mostly affect OLPC. I don't know if there are plans to
move to F20 with 0.102. I tend t
6 matches
Mail list logo
