3.5.0-7.7~precise1-generic works except for broadcom bcmwl-kernel-source failure

is this a duplicate of Bug 1029691 ?

This bug has been reported on the Ubuntu Package testing tracker.

A list of all reports related to this bug can be found here:
http://packages.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/reports/bugs/1031831

Maybe related: 1027459

The problem here is that bcmwl-kernel-source hasn't been updated in precise to work with newer kernels. This may not technically be a bug at this point since the quantal backport kernel isn't officially supported yet, but it is something that needs to be fixed eventually, so I'm going to go ahead and move the bug over to that package.

Since 3.8 is in Precise now, this is probably irrelevant.

[Expired for bcmwl (Ubuntu) because there has been no activity for 60 days.]

Bug expired because somebody decides "this is probably irrelevant", based on the false assumption that kernel 3.8 is in precise now.

Last time I looked (http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/linux-image-generic), the precise kernel is 3.2.0-51, in both precise and precise-updates.

People using a LTS version are not expected to use non-standard kernels, so making a bug in an LTS invalid because a non-LTS kernel may or may not fix the problem is, to say the least, absurd.

Note that this bug had been confirmed and "triaged" by Ubuntu people.

This probably isn't the place for this discussion but I checked http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/kernel/ and see that the 3.8 kernel is available HOWEVER apparently only for 64 bit x86 SMP as a security update, which is probably where the confusion lies. I gather you aren't using 64 bit packages on your hardware. I'm not either, but I have also moved beyond the Ubuntu 12.04LTS on the hardware I reported the bug from.

@Tommy,

I am using 64-bit, and actually am using kernel 3.10 with precise.

Now in the very same page you posted if you look at linux-generic you see it points to linux-image-generic which points to linux-image-3.2.0-51-generic.

I cannot say 100% but an average LTS user (doing only security updates and not testing mainline kernels, etc.) still has kernel 3.2.

Meaning that closing a bug in LTS because somebody (notorious for merging unrelated bugs) states, incorrectly, that "since 3.8 is in Precise now" concluding that "this is _probably_ irrelevant" is a seriously bad move.

But others have already argued that "this is open source" so it's cool if random people make a mess of a distribution.

@Bernardo,
I see your point. However, I have not tested the package using the current LTS kernel on that hardware, and indeed I recently did a fresh install of Ubuntu 13.04 on that netbook and was impressed the Broadcom network works much more reliably without doing anything at all.

I am not sure where the Broadcom compatible driver for Ubuntu 13.04 came from (Ubuntu suggests the proprietary driver, but it's working very well despite not choosing it).

I can download a current 12.04.2 LTS ISO, boot from it, and see what happens with the Broadcom driver on my Acer Aspire One D260. However it will take me some time to get to it. From what you're saying I presume it's still broken.

Just booted 12.04.2 64-bit ubuntu desktop live image (USB) on the Acer Aspire One D260.

ubuntu@ubuntu$ uname -a
Linux ubuntu 3.5.0-23-generic #35~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jan 25 17:13:26 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

The networking works from the live image. I'm connected to my LAN.

However the Install Drivers icon appeared in the top bar and it suggests I might want to install the proprietary Broadcom STA wireless drivers. I don't know the different drivers, but the live boot image is using the "brcmsmac" driver successfully on this hardware. It's my understanding this is the "proper" open source driver for broadcom.

I don't understand why Ubuntu suggests the proprietary driver when whatever is already in the kernel works fine, at least on this hardware.

It seems I can't really test bcmwl-kernel-source using a live iso on the little USB drive I had available. (The 1Gb casper-rw persistence file fills up REALLY fast, and the system becomes unbootable.) SO I haven't yet tested the problem as I reported it. I'll have to drag out a larger drive.