On Wednesday 17 January 2018 18:07:59 Pali Rohár wrote:
> Ok, that you for opinion. I drop init script and include upstream udev
> rule which replace it. And because there is no feature request for
> splitting package into more, I let it as is to not complicate it.
Updated package is there: https:
Ok, that you for opinion. I drop init script and include upstream udev
rule which replace it. And because there is no feature request for
splitting package into more, I let it as is to not complicate it.
--
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com
]] Ian Jackson
There is still no need to Cc folks on Debian lists unless explicitly
requested.
> Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: udftools, pktsetup and init scripts"):
> >] Pali Rohár
> >
> > > What do you think about moving pktsetup into own binary package?
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: udftools, pktsetup and init scripts"):
>] Pali Rohár
>
> > What do you think about moving pktsetup into own binary package? Users
> > who do not need packet writing configuration and only need tools for UDF
> > filesystem w
]] Pali Rohár
> What do you think about moving pktsetup into own binary package? Users
> who do not need packet writing configuration and only need tools for UDF
> filesystem would install only udftools package.
udftools is a tiny package, splitting it seems a bit meaningless.
> But such thing
On Dec 28, Pali Rohár wrote:
> I think it could make sense to remove init script and replace it by new
> udev rule and move both (udev rule and pktsetup) into own binary package
> pktsetup.
Yes: udev is de facto mandatory nowadays if you have anything dynamic,
so do now waste time with boot time
6 matches
Mail list logo
