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 would install only udftools package. > > udftools is a tiny package, splitting it seems a bit meaningless.
AIUI the point of splitting it would be to allow people to avoid the udev rule. It is often a good idea to separate packages containing quiescent utilities from packages containing automatical-launching configuration etc. > > But such thing probably needs more discussion or announcement in > > changelog... etc... as existing system configurations needs to be > > updated. > > If you do split it, udftools need to depend on pktsetup for the next > release at least so people don't lose that functionality. Presumably that's OK because the previous udftools package did this automatic stuff too, only a different way. FTR I don't have an objection to dropping the init script in favour of a udev rule. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.