[arch-dev-public] [signoff] filesystem 2010.01-1-any && New package to core (or extra if you don't want core): rfkill
This filesystem release adds the rfkill group. Please sign off. I'll also add the rfkill package to testing (moved from community) that will use this rfkill group. I want to put this into core if nobody objects.
Am 09.01.2010 16:58, schrieb Thomas Bächler:
This filesystem release adds the rfkill group. Please sign off.
I'll also add the rfkill package to testing (moved from community) that will use this rfkill group. I want to put this into core if nobody objects.
Okay, rfkill 0.3-2 is in testing, I'd like to have this in core: - Moved from community - Added udev rule for /dev/rfkill (group ownership set to rfkill group) - Added init script and conf.d file
On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 17:32 +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 09.01.2010 16:58, schrieb Thomas Bächler:
This filesystem release adds the rfkill group. Please sign off.
I'll also add the rfkill package to testing (moved from community) that will use this rfkill group. I want to put this into core if nobody objects.
Okay, rfkill 0.3-2 is in testing, I'd like to have this in core: - Moved from community - Added udev rule for /dev/rfkill (group ownership set to rfkill group) - Added init script and conf.d file
Sorry to not reply before on this, but what do other distributions do with rfkill? It's weird to be member of the rfkill group while everything else is managed by things like polkit, consolekit and udev. As my laptops have a hardware rfkill-switch instead of a software version, I'm not really affected by this, so I don't have any experience with it.
Am 09.01.2010 17:38, schrieb Jan de Groot:
Sorry to not reply before on this, but what do other distributions do with rfkill? It's weird to be member of the rfkill group while everything else is managed by things like polkit, consolekit and udev. As my laptops have a hardware rfkill-switch instead of a software version, I'm not really affected by this, so I don't have any experience with it.
Traditionally, we manage things like audio with groups. If there will be some new cool approach using all these weird polkit-consolekit-hal(not anymore)-things we might use it, but the "classical" way is now the easiest to provide, especially for minimalistic users/systems. You don't have to use it, the group is empty by default. Other distributions probably don't do anything with rfkill, as the new rfkill system is so new. Even if you have a hardware switch, you can still soft-block devices. For example, I can soft-block my bluetooth, while with hardware I can only block wifi and bluetooth simultaneously.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 09.01.2010 16:58, schrieb Thomas Bächler:
This filesystem release adds the rfkill group. Please sign off.
I'll also add the rfkill package to testing (moved from community) that will use this rfkill group. I want to put this into core if nobody objects.
Okay, rfkill 0.3-2 is in testing, I'd like to have this in core: - Moved from community - Added udev rule for /dev/rfkill (group ownership set to rfkill group) - Added init script and conf.d file
You need to add a backup array for /etc/conf.d/rfkill
Am 13.01.2010 20:15, schrieb Eric Bélanger:
Okay, rfkill 0.3-2 is in testing, I'd like to have this in core: - Moved from community - Added udev rule for /dev/rfkill (group ownership set to rfkill group) - Added init script and conf.d file
You need to add a backup array for /etc/conf.d/rfkill
Good catch.
Am 09.01.2010 17:32, schrieb Thomas Bächler:
Am 09.01.2010 16:58, schrieb Thomas Bächler:
This filesystem release adds the rfkill group. Please sign off.
I'll also add the rfkill package to testing (moved from community) that will use this rfkill group. I want to put this into core if nobody objects.
Okay, rfkill 0.3-2 is in testing, I'd like to have this in core: - Moved from community - Added udev rule for /dev/rfkill (group ownership set to rfkill group) - Added init script and conf.d file
Changes: add conf.d file to the backup array. Can I please get signoffs on rfkill and filesystem? And opinions about core vs. extra for rfkill?
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. -- Arch Linux Developer http://www.archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.it
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?
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
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
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.
participants (5)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Eric Bélanger
-
Giovanni Scafora
-
Jan de Groot
-
Thomas Bächler