On 2/9/11 2:15 AM, Vasilis Tsiligiannis wrote:
Why not just have the requirement that /etc/hotplug2-platform.rules be
present, even if it's zero-length?
Because an empty include rules file would then be required in base-files
overrides of each target.
That doesn't seem like such a bad thing..
On Wednesday 09 February 2011 12:24:26 Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> There was a patch merged in hotplug2 recently which allows wildcard
> expansion, so /etc/hotplug2.d/platform.rules could be included from main
> file as $include
Which one is that?
--
Vasilis Tsiligiannis
signature.asc
Descripti
Twas brillig at 12:15:44 09.02.2011 UTC+02 when b_tsiligian...@silverton.gr did
gyre and gimble:
>> Why not just have the requirement that /etc/hotplug2-platform.rules
>> be present, even if it's zero-length?
VT> Because an empty include rules file would then be required in base-files
VT>
> Why not just have the requirement that /etc/hotplug2-platform.rules be
> present, even if it's zero-length?
Because an empty include rules file would then be required in base-files
overrides of each target.
--
Vasilis Tsiligiannis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed messag
On 2/8/11 3:15 AM, Vasilis Tsiligiannis wrote:
On Tuesday 08 February 2011 01:57:23 Philip Prindeville wrote:
Why would include files ever be missing in the first place?
What's the root-cause problem this is attempting to fix?
This patch is not a bugfix; it's an enhancement. See also r25415.
On Tuesday 08 February 2011 01:57:23 Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Why would include files ever be missing in the first place?
>
> What's the root-cause problem this is attempting to fix?
This patch is not a bugfix; it's an enhancement. See also r25415.
--
Vasilis Tsiligiannis
signature.asc
Desc
Why would include files ever be missing in the first place?
What's the root-cause problem this is attempting to fix?
-Philip
On 2/7/11 2:28 PM, openwrt-comm...@openwrt.org wrote:
Author: acinonyx
Date: 2011-02-07 23:28:04 +0100 (Mon, 07 Feb 2011)
New Revision: 25414
Added:
trunk/package/
