On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:53 AM, David Higgs wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking more that it might be better for sensorsd internally
>> to treat state transitions of "indicator" sensors like it treats
>> status changes, rather than change how the se
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2014/12/09 09:36, David Higgs wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> > On 2014/12/08 15:04, David Higgs wrote:
>> >> As per an earlier thread on misc@, this fixes sensorsd.conf(5)
>> >> parsing of SENSOR_IN
On 2014/12/09 09:36, David Higgs wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2014/12/08 15:04, David Higgs wrote:
> >> As per an earlier thread on misc@, this fixes sensorsd.conf(5)
> >> parsing of SENSOR_INDICATOR values. Since parsing as integers was both
> >> undocum
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2014/12/08 15:04, David Higgs wrote:
>> As per an earlier thread on misc@, this fixes sensorsd.conf(5)
>> parsing of SENSOR_INDICATOR values. Since parsing as integers was both
>> undocumented and confusing, it is no longer supported. Al
On 2014/12/08 15:04, David Higgs wrote:
> As per an earlier thread on misc@, this fixes sensorsd.conf(5)
> parsing of SENSOR_INDICATOR values. Since parsing as integers was both
> undocumented and confusing, it is no longer supported. Also, bail on
> error if the high/low values don’t create a vali
As per an earlier thread on misc@, this fixes sensorsd.conf(5) parsing of
SENSOR_INDICATOR values. Since parsing as integers was both undocumented and
confusing, it is no longer supported. Also, bail on error if the high/low
values don’t create a valid range.
This mimics existing behavior, bu
