[arch-dev-public] rfkill package
I noticed that the rfkill package is in community now (very good). However, I have been asked if it was possible to make a few improvements: 1) Add a rfkill group (or use an existing group) and allow that group to write /dev/rfkill using udev (if we add a group, we should do that in the filesystem package, not the rfkill package). Apparently, some desktop applications would like to set the rfkill state, so this way we could allow that. 2) Add an init script that can optionally unblock wifi, bluetooth or anything else on boot. In the past, some devices were soft-blocked on boot by default (is this still an issue?), so this could be improved. Maybe we should even move this to extra or even core. Giovanni, this seems to be your package, what do you think?
2010/1/8, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:
Maybe we should even move this to extra or even core. Giovanni, this seems to be your package, what do you think?
Hi Thomas, I agree to move rfkill to extra or even core, but at the moment I'm very busy with my job and my family. Please, if you want to move rfkill to extra or core repo, feel free to do it. -- Arch Linux Developer http://www.archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.it
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:57 +0100, "Thomas Bächler" <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
I noticed that the rfkill package is in community now (very good). However, I have been asked if it was possible to make a few improvements:
1) Add a rfkill group (or use an existing group) and allow that group to write /dev/rfkill using udev (if we add a group, we should do that in the filesystem package, not the rfkill package). Apparently, some desktop applications would like to set the rfkill state, so this way we could allow that. 2) Add an init script that can optionally unblock wifi, bluetooth or anything else on boot. In the past, some devices were soft-blocked on boot by default (is this still an issue?), so this could be improved.
Maybe we should even move this to extra or even core. Giovanni, this seems to be your package, what do you think?
I started reworking netcfg a few weeks ago to use this instead of the deprecated sysfs interface and was planning to introduce it as an opt-dep in [extra]. So extra or core is fine. James
participants (3)
-
Giovanni Scafora
-
James Rayner
-
Thomas Bächler