Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   ArchLinux Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-development/)
-   -   filesystem 2010.01-1-any && New package to core (or extra if you don't want core): rfkill)) (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-development/308976-filesystem-2010-01-1-any-new-package-core-extra-if-you-dont-want-core-rfkill.html)

Aaron Griffin 01-13-2010 08:05 PM

filesystem 2010.01-1-any && New package to core (or extra if you don't want core): rfkill))
 
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Giovanni Scafora
<giovanni@archlinux.org> wrote:
> 2010/1/13, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:
>> *Can I please get signoffs on rfkill and filesystem? And opinions about
>> *core vs. extra for rfkill?
>
> I think that rfkill should go to core repo as dependency of filesystem.

As a dependency of filesystem? That doesn't make sense at all. Just
because we have a file with an optional entry doesn't make it a
dependency.

Currently filesystem has 0 depends. Why does rfkill make more sense
than, say, shadow or pam or bash?

Giovanni Scafora 01-13-2010 08:13 PM

filesystem 2010.01-1-any && New package to core (or extra if you don't want core): rfkill))
 
2010/1/13, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
> As a dependency of filesystem? That doesn't make sense at all. Just
> because we have a file with an optional entry doesn't make it a
> dependency.

Well, then we can put rfkill to extra, right?


--
Arch Linux Developer
http://www.archlinux.org
http://www.archlinux.it

Aaron Griffin 01-13-2010 08:21 PM

filesystem 2010.01-1-any && New package to core (or extra if you don't want core): rfkill))
 
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Giovanni Scafora
<giovanni@archlinux.org> wrote:
> 2010/1/13, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
>> As a dependency of filesystem? That doesn't make sense at all. Just
>> *because we have a file with an optional entry doesn't make it a
>> *dependency.
>
> Well, then we can put rfkill to extra, right?

I dunno. I don't fully understand it, to be honest, probably because I
don't need it. What I do understand is that rfkill is related to
wireless devices and connections. I think we should put it along with
the rest of the wireless stuff

Thomas Bächler 01-13-2010 08:27 PM

filesystem 2010.01-1-any && New package to core (or extra if you don't want core): rfkill))
 
Am 13.01.2010 22:21, schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Giovanni Scafora
> <giovanni@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> 2010/1/13, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
>>> As a dependency of filesystem? That doesn't make sense at all. Just
>>> because we have a file with an optional entry doesn't make it a
>>> dependency.
>>
>> Well, then we can put rfkill to extra, right?
>
> I dunno. I don't fully understand it, to be honest, probably because I
> don't need it. What I do understand is that rfkill is related to
> wireless devices and connections. I think we should put it along with
> the rest of the wireless stuff

If your wireless doesn't work, it might be because it is soft-blocked
(that happened to lots of people with 2.6.31). Having it in core will be
helpful in such cases. However, I think this has been solved and
everything is unblocked these days.

rfkill will soon be an optdepend of netcfg, but it can still be in
extra. I have no arguments for any side.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:18 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.