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
Hi!
In Debian repository there is for a long time package udftools which
contains some tools for UDF filesystem and for historic reasons also
pktsetup tool.
pktsetup tool configures mapping of optical discs and packet writing
devices and is basically userspace configuration tool for kernel module
7 matches
Mail list logo
