On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Paul McEnery <pmcen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 April 2010 17:39, Julien BLACHE <jbla...@debian.org> wrote: >> Olivier Galibert <galib...@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>> Why can't ipheth just depend on libimobiledevice-utils ? It *is* a >>> functional dependency after all, even if they're not communicating >>> directly with each other. >> >> The ipheth-dkms package will disappear because ipheth has been accepted >> upstream and the kernel team added it to our 2.6.32 packages. >> >> So there's only ipheth-utils left, containing the udev rules and the >> pairing utility. If a pairing utility is also distributed as part of >> libimobiledevice, we're left with just the udev rules, and at that point >> it's just sane to ask ourselves where the udev rules belong. >> >> I think it's going to end up in libimobiledevice-utils at that point, >> unless there's a compelling reason not to do that. A package for a >> single very small file is a big no-no. >> > > > Is anyone prepared to commit to including a pairing utility and the > udev rule as part of libimobiledevice? > > If so, I guess we have a solution. The respective distro packagers can > do the rest.
What's the final resolution to this? With ipeth now in a stable kernel release it would be nice to have a user space tools release to support it. Regards, Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimz4epy7fj86fs56njeukbtl7ykpsf2gjyiq...@mail.gmail.com
